• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    04 months ago

    Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.

    we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      no matter how compelling the evidence is.

      That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 months ago

        And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            04 months ago

            YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              14 months ago

              And who exactly denied him the right to defend himself? IIRC it was Trump that ordered these charges to be dropped, and who knows what Adams got in return. It’s not like people are asking the NY govorner to send him to prison. He is a civil servant and there is a legal process already in place to remove corrupt mayors that is not being followed. Why are you licking the boots of the oligarchs so hard?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                04 months ago

                Im not licking anyone’s boots as I have clearly stated I want him to have a legal process which you and several others have suggested is not necessary.

                You have made a very pro-authoritarian claim as to how this should be handled

                I am making one that we should follow the rule of law.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  In NYC mayors can’t be impeached. The only legal way to remove a mayor in NY is by action of the govorner. You keep acting like we are calling for imprisonment here, but this is literally the correct legal process to remove a corrupt mayor. By not removing him, the govorner is acting against the rule of law you seem to be so concerned about. It is more authoritarian to think he deserves to stay mayor despite betraying his people.

                  https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-5717

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    04 months ago

                    And that action requires he be presented with the charges against him and he be provided the opportunity to defend himself.

                    The governor cannot legally just pull him from office. These procedures need to be followed.