Rachael Rollins confirmed as Massachusetts US Attorney (Paxton: violations, parties)

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Says the myopic partisan Dem who defends every move they make. Rollins was low hanging fruit and a convenient opportunity for you to come on here to get on your soapbox with this pipe dream about Democrats holding their own to standards thereby implying you have some credibility. LMAO

There's no evidence that Dems uphold any more "ethical" standards than anybody else and that's quite clear by looking at who is "leading" the party right now. LMAO

Facts: Rollins resigned before she got indicted or charged with anything. Same with Al Franken many years ago. How about Andrew Cuomo more recently? Both were held accountable by their own party. Examples abound.

On the other hand, in your example we have a GOP official indicted over a year ago, who is defiantly and shamelessly hanging on. That ain't accountability. And need we bring up Santos? And the "leader" of your party who is already under indictment with more to come?

Not even a comparison. Ethical standards should not be partisan nor selective.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Facts: Rollins resigned before she got indicted or charged with anything. Same with Al Franken many years ago. How about Andrew Cuomo more recently? Both were held accountable by their own party. Examples abound.

On the other hand, in your example we have a GOP official indicted over a year ago, who is defiantly and shamelessly hanging on. That ain't accountability. And need we bring up Santos? And the "leader" of your party who is already under indictment with more to come?

Not even a comparison. Ethical standards should not be partisan nor selective.

So what? The Democratic party also has a long and storied history of supporting criminals in the party and in some case re-electing them. Your cherry picking certain cases doesn't mean anything. You also don't know whether they were held accountable or simply jettisoned to save their own. She was hired even after her meltdown at South Bay. No standards applied there. At some point some of these people bring on too much heat and it's buh bye.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

So what? The Democratic party also has a long and storied history of supporting criminals in the party and in some case re-electing them. Your cherry picking certain cases doesn't mean anything.

This thread is about Rollins. She's been held accountable by her own party - FACT. She honorably resigned rather than deny / deflect / complain about being targeted unfairly by the opposition - FACT.

Ken Paxton's case is a totally different animal--go read up on it.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

This thread is about Rollins. She's been held accountable by her own party - FACT. She honorably resigned rather than deny / deflect / complain about being targeted unfairly by the opposition - FACT.

Ken Paxton's case is a totally different animal--go read up on it.

Keep moving the goal posts and doing the usual dance to defend your (indefensible) position and party. LMAO

Kind of hard to complain about being targeted by opposition when the DOJ IG is who investigated. And based on some of her arrogant public statements over the years, I'm going to guess that being "honorable" was not a major factor in this decision, and I have reluctantly defended her up to this point.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Keep moving the goal posts and doing the usual dance to defend your (indefensible) position and party. LMAO

Kind of hard to complain about being targeted by opposition when the DOJ IG is who investigated. And based on some of her arrogant public statements over the years, I'm going to guess that being "honorable" was not a major factor in this decision, and I have reluctantly defended her up to this point.

FYI it was Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), one of her harshest critics during the confirmation process, who instigated the initial DOJ investigation based on the Jill Biden incident.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

FYI it was Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), one of her harshest critics during the confirmation process, who instigated the initial DOJ investigation based on the Jill Biden incident.

No kidding, but he didn't investigate. Probably would have been better if he colluded with foreign actors and then alleged that his opponent was doing that, right?

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

No kidding, but he didn't investigate. Probably would have been better if he colluded with foreign actors and then alleged that his opponent was doing that, right?

Hmm...did Rollins go on Twitter and attack Cotton as an "anti-woke", "anti-progressive", "anti-Soros" MAGA for sticking the DOJ after her? I must've missed that one.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Hmm...did Rollins go on Twitter and attack Cotton as an "anti-woke", "anti-progressive", "anti-Soros" MAGA for sticking the DOJ after her? I must've missed that one.

That's your standard now? So what? She's accused by two independent agencies of violating federal laws, regulation, and ethics standards. She allegedly tried to sabotage the campaign of a political rival, lied under oath, accepted gifts and campaign contributions after being appointed. You're funny.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

That's your standard now? So what? She's accused by two independent agencies of violating federal laws, regulation, and ethics standards. She allegedly tried to sabotage the campaign of a political rival, lied under oath, accepted gifts and campaign contributions after being appointed. You're funny.

Talk about totally missing the point and/or zero reading comprehension. You actually think I'm defending her ethics?

All through this thread I've pointed to the egregious nature of what Rollins did, and my point is that she had the dignity to resign before being indicted. Unlike so many other politicians, yes, mostly on the GOP side...who shamelessly cling to their position and/or deny/deflect/obstruct, you name it.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Talk about totally missing the point and/or zero reading comprehension. You actually think I'm defending her ethics?

All through this thread I've pointed to the egregious nature of what Rollins did, and my point is that she had the dignity to resign before being indicted. Unlike so many other politicians, yes, mostly on the GOP side...who shamelessly cling to their position and/or deny/deflect/obstruct, you name it.

Um, no, I haven't missed any point if that's seriously what you are calling it . Your original pile of poppycock was that Rollins' resignation supports the preposterous insinuation that your political party sits on higher moral and ethical ground than the other party, yet offered up no real evidence of such. You offered no real evidence that she resigned out of "honor" or "dignity" as opposed to perhaps being told that she would be axed or that her chance of being criminally charged would rise if she refused. You've presented no real evidence that her party peers cut her loose to uphold ethical standards as opposed to saving their own political skins. You've provided no evidence that more Repubs refuse to resign under similar circumstances than Dems. You've provided no real evidence that Dems resign out of "honor" more than Repubs or that Dems commit fewer crimes or ethical violations. No convincing evidence that Dems overall policy positions are more ethical than others. It's just you using this low-hanging fruit to propagate the ridiculous notion that your party is more morally righteous than the opposing party, simply because this person resigned.

Even if you could quantify that more Dems resign than Repubs, there are so many other potential variables involved that comparisons based solely on party affiliation are useless (and dumb). Variables include but are not limited to elected vs appointed (would an elected Rollins have resigned?), legislative vs.executive, convicted vs. accused, criminal vs.ethical, personal vs. official, number of accused, among many others and outside influencers. Just more useless political flaming propaganda, but certainly no surprise. No rational thinking people are being fooled, but by all means carry on with this fool's errand. It certainly doesn't boost anyone's credibility.