Purge Politics: Jeffries Pledges Legal Retaliation When Democrats Take Power
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On MSNBC’s “All In,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) doubled down on his pledge of legal retaliation against Trump officials and associates if Democrats retake power. He noted that Trump “sycophants” in the Department of Justice do not have immunity and will be pursued. The statement comes after the indictment of Letitia James for mortgage fraud. The statement suggests that the country could be in store for waves of purge politics in which parties fire or prosecute officials from the prior administration.
The comments come after the charging of Letitia James for mortgage fraud, a move widely viewed as retaliation for her own lawfare record.
On the program, Jeffries was asked about his prior threats of tit-for-tat actions against Trump supporters or enablers.
Host Chris Hayes noted, “You put a statement out in response to the news of Tish James’s indictment, in which you said, among other things, that those sycophants who aid and abet the president’s schemes will not be able to hide from serious legal consequences of their behavior. They will be held accountable. What do you mean by that?”
Jeffries responded that
“there are so many different corrupt sycophants within the Trump administration, including, but not limited to within the Department of Justice. Now, these people don’t have immunity. And the reality is the statute of limitations is five years, and there will be accountability with the next administration, if not before, when Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives.”
In the meantime, James is claiming victim status in the indictment despite being lawfare’s happiest warrior, who ran on a pledge to nail Trump if elected (without bothering to specify what that crime or offense might be). James is declaring, “ I am fearless .” She is also shameless.
I have been critical of some of these cases, which followed a social media posting in which Trump chastised the Justice Department for not indicting a list of political opponents. Within days, Comey and James were indicted. That posting will feature prominently in the challenges to be filed for vindictive prosecution by both defendants. James is likely to raise the resignation of former acting U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert, who reportedly was forced out after objecting to the basis for indicting James.
Jeffries’ pledge suggests that cycles of purge politics are likely to continue unabated in this country.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
This is how the Roman Republic ended, in lawfare. People lost power, their enemies attacked them in the courts. Eventually, Caesar decided just not to give up power.
Having started this war, Jefferies vows to continue it if given the chance.
Explain that. What, exactly, did Jeffries start?
He supported his state party's lawfare against Trump, right? Did I miss him speaking out against them?
Didn't you know that when Dems do it it's lawfair, but when MAGA - Teabaggers do it it's justice? /s
What is lawfare in your mind? That strikes me as a new made-up word for legal action you just don’t like.
Then you said Jeffries started it. I don’t think you have supported that claim. You seem to be conflating starting something, with supporting something, and simply not speaking against it. That’s a lot.
Also, what does the party have to do with it?
Forcing the DOJ to indict someone despite the DOJ saying they have no reason to..... Sound familiar?
I think a better definition would be you make-up something, like Russian Collusion and then try to prosecute the person.
Well.........it has been all Democrats that have been doing it.
Politically motivated prosecution, like when a DA campaigns on getting Trump and finding a reason later.
That’s a lot.
It makes no difference. His party, of whom he is the nominal leader, started it and he vows to continue it. That other New York Democrats filed the suits is a distinciton without a difference.
hat does the party have to do with it?
Lol.
Nothing wrong with campaigning on prosecuting criminals, especially specific ones.
If you mean Alvin Bragg, Trump’s criminal behavior was identified, and an investigation begun before Bragg was DA.
Gotta disagree with you here. It's not illegal as prosecutors are elected officials and politicians make all sorts of stupid promises when campaigning. But the optics are sure bad. She didn't campaign on prosecuting criminals, she specifically named Trump and after she won election she repeated that she was going to sue Trump, going to be a pain in the ass to him and he was going to know her name. Even Anderson Cooper called her out on it. It's not a good look.
As far as the investigation begun before Bragg was DA, you must mean the one started by Cyrus Vance Jr. But correct me if I'm wrong but Vance didn't identify criminal behavior but only suspected it. His investigation never got very far. And the final story of that lawsuit has not yet been written as it's still under appeal.
It’s hard to know what people are referencing when they decline to give specifics. Very often, when I ask for clarification, I get obfuscation instead. So, my speculation is the best I can do.
Frankly, Trump campaigned on locking up Hillary Clinton - his direct opposition - so his supporters don’t have a right to complain. At least no one who tried to prosecute Trump was actually running against him.
I'm sure such stalwart defenders of justice as Beria and Vyshinky would you agree with you.
Be my guest if you want to argue that Braggs' prosecution of Trump wasn't politically motivated. Self defeating claims like that don't need a rebuttal.
What is interesting is how frequently Trump's fiercest critics present arguments that are simply the mirror image of his.
Nope, sorry but this doesn't fly. Your post of 1.1.7 has all the specifics. It's common knowledge that James campaigned on getting Trump and when elected she did go after him, indicted and got him to trial. The outcome is still in doubt due to appeals but that did all happen. There was no obfuscation at all. Your statement on that is a dodge.
The difference there is he's not gotten any legal actions against her started.
Yeah, I really don’t give a fuck what you choose to believe,
I also don’t give a fuck about what you think is “common knowledge.” I don’t spend my days and nights worrying about all the different career prosecutors who found cause to charge Donald Trump with a crime or sue him civilly. It’s too many for me to keep track of, but apparently they all live in your head rent free, so congrats on that.
I didn’t say there was. I said there “very often” is.
That’s not the difference you think it is. I guess at some point, you just decided to skip reading the thread because I was responding to this:
This is the first time the government was shut down over a clean CR bill.
The dems have set another precedent.
Did he attempt to get anyone to actually prosecute Hillary? Or was that just campaign rhetoric.
It's one thing to spout nonsense on the campaign trail. It's another entirely to specifically single out a political opponent for prosecution.
ALL of what is happening right now is the blame of the Republican Party. All. Trump has been psychologically unstable for many many years, tried to overthrow the government following the 2020 election, and should have been immediately kicked out of the Republican Party and politics. You didnt do it, and now we are seeing the tragic results of that cowardice.
No, Trump made you do it.
Who is “me?”
In the seeded link the "me" is Hakeem Jefferies. Jefferies hasn't done it yet but it will be Trump's fault when he does do it.
But I haven't done anything.
It's actually amazing how many left-wing liberals are terrified of clowns. Or is that triggered?
Shows advanced stage of TDS, may be terminal.
You support Trump, the force that is ruining this country.
I support a lot of Trump's policies. I really don't care about Trump. I also enjoy Trump peeling the grapes of Democrats who turned their backs on FDR progressivism.
I asked myself a few days ago if I would buy a used car from that guy? After consideration, the answer was a resounding OH HELL NO!
Good! If it's ok for the repubs to do it, then it's ok for the Dems.
I really don’t think we’re going to see Democrats ignore the investigations of multiple career prosecutors, and then appoint a lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience to indict perceived enemies of the president.
Dems already did it. Where were you the last 8 years?
That has been all the Dem's have done. Were you not paying attention between 2015 and today?
So reality is Dollar Tree Obama admits that Democrats will continue the idiocy that we've witnessed since 2016. More fiction based "lawsuits" and "investigations", more "charges" with nothing to back them up, continued whining, crying, screaming at the sky and foot stomping.
You know he isn't the president anymore, right?
Now read the WHOLE statement.
Because he’s black?
If not racism, why racism-shaped?
Because that is what you are looking for.
No. Nobody's looking for the racism. You used a poor choice of words trying to be funny and/or sarcastic. And you failed
Many leftists see racism everywhere.
That's how they get through life
3.2 reflects otherwise.
and 3.2 is an example of that.
No, actually, I hope to find the opposite. I just see you clearly.
And you make it even more clear with your response. You want to act all offended that I might see racism in your comment, because it’s actually there. If it weren’t, you’d be able to explain why it’s not.
Any of us can be accused of it. You can reflect on what you’ve said, to see if it’s true. And maybe that leads to positive growth. Or you can clarify your remarks and explain why you believe what you said is not racist. We can have a discussion.
But when the racism is actually there, what we usually get is the kind of automatic deflection you offered. i.e.: the person who pointed it out is “the real racist.” But I see that tactic clearly, too.
A lot of people who engage in racism like to tell themselves that. I guess it’s how they get through life.
You see me how you want to see me. I made no reference to race / skin color. That was you.
But when the racism is actually there, what we usually get is the kind of automatic deflection you offered
You’re still making my point for me. You have been asked to explain your comment, but you’d rather attack me personally.
I invite you again to explain why your comment is not racist. What is it about Hakeem Jeffries that makes him “Dollar Tree Obama.” Are there other people you would use that term on? Are any of them not black?
Saying someone is a lesser version of someone the left idolizes is not being racist. It just means that person is not seen at the same level as the other.
What if someone called Vance temu Trump? Would you see that as racist, as the skin color is the same, or does it only count for minorities?
I am sure you meant to have this as an insult but you failed. Show me where I have engaged in racism, ESPECIALLY since I am married to a minority.
True, but you didn’t say it. The person who did would rather attack me than explain the remark. I don’t know why you feel it necessary to ride to his rescue.
See, here, you have reached a conclusion about a comment i made. Rather than attack you for it, i will explain to you that i did not mean it as an insult. Though given the very tribal nature of so many conversations on this site, i am not surprised that you made that assumption.
No, I only meant it as an observation. I see a lot of remarks defended with only personal attacks. e.g., “I’m not being racist. You’re the racist for even questioning it.” I think that is not a helpful response, but I see it a lot.
I didn’t say you did.
I don’t think this matters as much as you want it to. Can it help? Of course. But the tribal nature of our politics and religions have a very powerful effect on people, and the bubbles we live in can often influence people to accept discrimination or disrespect of certain groups, even when they would not have embraced such ideology on their own.
So for example, there are plenty of women in our society who think they should not work, and spend their lives submitting to their husbands, and live perpetually barefoot and pregnant because their community has convinced them this is the best way to live. That’s just one example.
But you did. Perpetual racist thoughts seem to live in others and they read things in that context every day.
"I don’t know why you feel it necessary to ride to his rescue."
I did not come to anyone's rescue. I saw a post that the poster did not know the context of what was posted and I rightfully corrected that poster. Nothing else.
My conclusion was correct. Just because I pointed it out and you did not like it is not my problem.
"No, I only meant it as an observation"
No, you meant it as an insult. You posted..."A lot of people who engage in racism like to tell themselves that", meaning that whoever posted what I did engage in racism themselves. Don't try and back track. I called you out and again, you don't like it. Too bad.
No, Jeremy did. Maybe you should try rereading the thread.
Rightfully? We have no way of knowing that. You are speaking for someone else.
Now, you purport to speak for me. Worse than that, you are accusing me of lying about my own thoughts. You have no right to do that.
You may have been insulted by what I wrote, but I have already explained that was not my intent. Your insistence on contradicting me on this point seems pretty arrogant. You should be happy to be wrong about this, just as I would be happy to be wrong about what Jeremy wrote. Perhaps you would rather be angry. That’s a choice some people prefer.
No, your posts speak for themselves.
"Worse than that, you are accusing me of lying about my own thoughts."
I don't think you lied. You meant exactly what I described.
"but I have already explained that was not my intent"
[deleted][✘]
And they STILL don't know the context.
My comment is in plain English. If you are having problems with that, then that's on you.
I'll take "Things that never happened" for $100 Alex.
Because it's only racist in YOUR mind. Once again, I never mentioned race / skin color. Once again, that come from YOU.
No, it's pretty fucking racist when most people associate "Dollar Tree" with being "cheap" or for the "poor" and you refer to our one black President as "Dollar Tree Obama" with no context to how "Dollar Tree" relates to any aspect of the Obama presidency. That makes it pretty fucking clear it was racist when you wrote it and still racist as you try and explain it away or obfuscate it behind personal attacks and moronic baseless conservative opinions.
But it's not like it surprised anyone here. It's what most have known for a very long time about our conservative Trump supporters here on NT. They try to hide it, but every now and then the curtain is pulled back to get a fully exposed view of the conservative Republican mind.
I love Dollar Tree.
Dude, get your facts straight. I didn't refer to Obama in anything. I referred to JEFFERIES.
YOU are the one that brought race into all of this. I, honestly, could care less if they are black, white, blue or aqua marine. That is irrelevant to everybody with the exception of racists.
I'm have no intention of explaining why YOU saw race in something that had nothing to do with it.
Oh, sorry, I got the wrong black man as the "Poor" black man in your statement. Or do you think it wasn't racist because after seeing Trump's video of Jeffries with a sombrero you think he's Mexican now?
There’s nothing “plain English” about calling a person “Dollar Tree Obama.” That’s not the man’s name.
Straight ahead questions: why Dollar Tree? Why Obama?
Good questions. Would he call Chuck Schumer a "Dollar Tree Obama"? Doesnt seem likely.
You say that like I should care.
Because he's a cheap knock off. And about as useful.
because he was trying to be funny. he's not
Actually the fun part was watching you all set your hair on fire over something that wasn't said then try to justify it with the expected level of idiocy.
no, the funny part was you tripping all over yourself trying not to sound like a racist
He doesn’t mind saying racist shit. It’s just embarrassing for him when we point it out. SSDD.
How so? What do they have in common?
The only thing they have in common is they've been in the party that's been on the wrong side of virtually EVERYTHYING.
According to chatGPT when prompted with the above statement:
For your further edification, chatGPT has provided
So, the various investigations were based on real and observable evidence.
The comment about "Dollar Store Obama" was offensive and probably racist.
That's not my statement. At least try to be factual.
Kind of like the use of the term "MAGA".
I don't care if you find it offensive. I never mentioned anything about race. That's something pulled from your fantasy world.
So, why not Dollar Store Biden?
There's no 'subtle' doubleshot racism in it.
Because, unlike Biden, and I have to give credit where it's due, Jefferies is semi coherent. He doesn't make sense very often but he can at least put a 3 word sentence together.
If a leftist calles JD Vance "temu Trump" or "Dollar Tree Trump", should I call that person a racist or is it OK to call republicans, in your mind, "racist" names?
Most of his rants consist of "Trump", "fascist" and "MAGA Republicans".
He is like Dollar Tree where everything is a dollar every time.
Ever notice that the Democrat and their lemmings can never promote anything good they have done. It's always complaining about Trump.
Don't you think you're inflating his value?
I was only being nice.
Anything less and I am sure some of our "friends" here will screech in calling me a racist, another word they have no idea the meaning.
Oh that's already happening.
That's an understatement. I think if they say it enough, they get a free bubble tea or something.
Really?
That is your sentence. Your statement. Here's a picture.
Why so shy? Be a man. Own what you put into the world.
Cause he's not senile?
Yes I’m sure that’s it.
Probably because it has been about 40 years since they have done something good.
Simple question..
Can you answer 3.2.40?
There is that. I'm sure they can chime in and prove us wrong by listing what good they've done.
Ok. That was my statement. You get a cookie. Doesn't really change anything.
Depends on why. That the whole thing. From the very beginning, I asked the question, “why?” I didn’t just declare it to be racist and then remained closed to any other explanation.
But instead of an explanation, or any kind of genuine discussion, I got a bunch of fake outrage.
Well, here it has been 6 hours since you posted this and nary a response.
I/m shocked s/
Because you insinuated in 3.2.37 that the original post was based on race, so I asked what if the racists are reversed. You can't answer the question or you just know the answer and want to deflect with a rant of why you got answers you don't like.
and that list they've put up will continue to be at zero balance for quite a while.
“Depends on why” is the answer. Since I didn’t say the things in your example, I can’t supply a reason why anyone would say them. How could I? I didn’t say them.
Since they are your examples, why don’t you supply a reason for saying them?
You mean like unfounded childish "that's racist" crying in this thread?
No, I mean like all of your responses to the original question. You can’t even acknowledge that it could be perceived as racist. And it took a long time for you to produce even a lame non-racist rationale for writing it in the first place.
Why should I acknowledge something that you injected? I don't care how YOU perceive it. That's a problem for you to work through, not me.
The only one that found it racist was YOU.
I still haven’t said that. But you’re not leaving the rest of us much choice but to think that. I’ll know you say you don’t care, but you keep trying to deflect from it. Maybe you shouldn’t worry about it so much.
Rest of us?...
Rhetorical question; How many trolls can fit under one bridge?
No idea. You have a better view than I do.
60 comments into the thread, and that was your attempt at contributing to the conversation?
What conversation?
All I can do is laugh at how 'Trumpian' Mr. Jeffires sounds. Seems to me, if he's promising to do this then he really doesn't have a leg to stand on when bitching about how the current administration is doing.
I don't think we need to worry about the Dems retaking power any time soon. Most Americans possessing any reasonable amount of intelligence and common sense realize the average citizen is rational, sane, optimistic about the future, and has little for negativity and corrupt governments, specifically the extreme far left radicals who control the party now.
The simply don't have the numbers to get the job done, as more and more people leave the party of hate and violence and switch to the Republicans
Democrats' Odds of Gaining Control of the House Are Sinking Fast, New Numbers Show – RedState
Pretty hard to take control of something when their party has a 19, or lower, percent approval rating.
After the Schumer shutdown is over, I can assure you the number will pan out to be lower.