Would a Biden Administration pursue the crimes of Trump & Co.?

[crazytown]

Democratic Campaign Event, September 2, 2008
Deerfield Beach, Florida

Question: I'd like to know if you guys are going to pursue the violations that have been made against our Constitution by the present administration and restore the Constitution to its rightful place in our society?

Senator Biden: Yes (applause)

Now, look, here's the deal. My colleagues can tell you, particularly Henry Waxman, one of the things that happens is -- you know, there's a phrase in the law, those of you who are lawyers. Sometimes you're estopped from being able to present something, meaning your failing to have acted in the past precludes you having the right to act in the future. We will not be estopped from pursuing any criminal offense that's occurred.

Now, here's what's happening: Patrick Leahy in the Judiciary Committee and Henry Waxman from California, in his oversight committee, as well as John Conyers in his Judiciary Committee, what they're doing is they're doing the right thing. They're not making false accusations about anything. They're not making unfounded accusations. They're collecting data. They are subpoenaing records. They're building the file, and they're going through it and will go through it with a fine- tooth comb.

If there has been a basis upon which you could pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued -- not out of vengeance, not out of retribution; out of the need to preserve the notion that no one -- no one -- no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law. (Applause)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?280848-1/obama-campaign-event-deerfield-beach-florida

[delisen]

1. So many of today's bad actors got away with such behavior in the past

We have suffered much from the advice to "move on."

[mobeau69]

2. The quote is not that easy to read.

"Now, look, here's the deal. My colleagues can tell you, particularly Henry Waxman, one of the things that happens is -- you know, there's a phrase in the law, those of you who are lawyers."

"Now, here's what's happening: Patrick Leahy in the Judiciary Committee and Henry Waxman from California, in his oversight committee, as well as John Conyers in his Judiciary Committee, what they're doing is they're doing the right thing."

Pete is a better communicator than most, if not all, of our candidates and I guess it's spoiled me.

[crazytown]

4. When you read a transcript of something Pete said

you feel like it’s has been written at a desk, tweaked and polished for readability and clarity.

Pete says things in a conversational tone that are tight, nuanced and elegant. I hope he publishes some poetry one day.

[mobeau69]

5. Pete understands the power of the "sound bite,"

the limitation of attention spans, and the need to be succinct and intentional in his words.

[crazytown]

7. Yes he does.

However at times his stump speech can sound like a PowerPoint presentation. He puts out a couple of sentences, stands stock still until the applause is (completely) finished, then begins again.

[mobeau69]

9. I like that. It is intentional.

I've noticed when he's answering a question and the questioner rudely interrupts with another "better" question Pete stops on a dime and listens to that question. He's very disciplined about that.

[crazytown]

15. Personally I would prefer

he would resume at the tail end of audience applause. It’s unusual for a speaker to allow the room to fall silent mid speech.

[crazytown]

11. Dupe

[mobeau69]

16. ?

[crazytown]

17. I put my reply in the wrong place.

It’s posted it above ‘Personally I would prefer’. I could have deleted it, but I’ve left too many deletions in OPs and people start of wonder what I am trying to hide

[TeamPooka]

3. all that sexy "estoppel" talk. nt

[KayF]

14. I thought he was doing a spanish accent

maybe pandering to a South Florida audience

[Honeycombe8]

6. I wonder if he would, though, really. Because of what may be going on in 2021...

after the new Prez takes office. There may be a recession by then. We may be in a Trump war.

But I can hope. The things that this administration have done should not be allowed to stand without accountability.

[crazytown]

8. The Obama Administration was saddled with AG Holder

who rarely to an interest in pursuing well connected criminals.

‘Too big to jail’

[Honeycombe8]

12. Hmmm. But also, dealing with the Great Recession was paramount.

All hands on deck, as they say. We were teetering on the edge of having a Great Depression II.

Still, there should have been investigations.

[crazytown]

13. Yeah. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

When the Administration took office, America was losing 800,000 jobs a month.

[Hortensis]

10. Hard to say for ANY Democratic president. We can say

we really need to, but at the same time the costs of doing so might be more costly and demoralizing to the nation than the benefits. I've always believed we should show the nation that criminals are criminals regardless of stature, same standards and consequences for everyone, but there were also very good reasons for moving on.

Imagine we put these people in prison but cooperation and deals that were forfeited and a great partisan hostility that generated kept congress from adequately rooting out the corruption the Republicans had embedded in our systems. Federal and states.

Rooting out their corruption and restoring faith in our democracy and belief that it can and must function ethically is far more important. That's what we need to focus on, and if we also demonstrate that no man is above the law, or punishment, we should. But even though I was angered that Nixon didn't go to prison, he spent the rest of his life and died in disgrace.

Our giant pro-democracy/ant-corruption HR1 package will do the first, plus other, even tougher bills are being written, such as Elizabeth Warren's, for the senate, which will be reconciled and passed when we hold both houses. Give us the power and we will fix what went so terribly wrong and amend the laws so it can't happen again, not like this.