Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NetQuarterLatte t1_j2qbrtv wrote

>If Mr. Santos does not present a defense in the Brazilian case, he will be tried in absentia. If found guilty, Mr. Santos could receive up to five years in prison, plus a fine.

I did not expect to start 2023 and see the NY Times gloat about anyone's prospect of spending 5 years in a Brazilian prison for a crime that wouldn't keep him in custody for more than a couple hours if it was committed in NYC.

It's amazing to see how the "criminal justice advocacy" is conditional on partisanship.

Just to be clear: fuck George Santos.

Edit: to the people asking about the gloating: the whole article is a “tough-on-crime justice porn fantasy” on an obviously unsympathetic defendant in a criminal case that is unlikely to amount to anything. And the five year sentence prospect is just the punch line. If you can’t see it, that’s on you.

−30

CraniumEggs t1_j2qokze wrote

Them presenting the facts isn’t gloating. Literally just stated what he is accused of and what he would face if that happened. Nothing else. Can you please show me any bit of the article of them gloating? Even one sentence?

The real hypocrisy is the GOP being about law and order and defending this guy conditional on partisanship.

21

NetQuarterLatte t1_j2rwxvn wrote

>The real hypocrisy is the GOP being about law and order and defending this guy conditional on partisanship.

Most people can see the hypocrisy on the GOP here.

If the "law and order" hypocrisy wasn't obvious during the Trump era, I'm surprised George Santos is what it took for you to realize that.

Would you feel that the whataboutism ("The GOP has hypocrisy too!") makes the hypocrisy in the "criminal justice advocacy" crowd look any better?

−11

LivefromPhoenix t1_j2qoks5 wrote

>and see the NY Times gloat about

Seems like a normal article to me. What gives you the impression they're gloating beyond your obvious dislike of the news org?

17