It’s always fun to take a rebuttal stand and create an opposite view of every debate. Here’s a stab at that..
On the flip side of RR’s theme (these guys were/are charmers) a rebuttal might say all the honor is placed at the top, on the rulers of the Legal class and glorifying the *presumption* that they are doing God’s work.
The cynic might see RR saying:
1) RR: “We tried. We used the wonderful law and the wonderful cover of the greatest law institution in the world to get the Orange man, but the People would not bite.” (The People are used only as a prop, not the main theme of shaping DEMOCRACY, by.force.of.law.
2) RR: “ Law is only as good as the people issuing it, so come on in and participate. I’ve left my office in good shape for you (and people behind to help you ) to do a better job, go out there and get the Orange man and mess with the people who support the “m#%^*# &u@&$r”.”
Lenin and Stalin knew how to use virtue, and glory to take power. It’s sick to have to contemplate dirty tricks in everything, and dirty cops, at the top, carrying it out against a Republic.
I think RR is setting up justification for the hammer about to drop on a whole buncha people.
If I’m wrong, I will put ashes on my head.
Yes, every time you hear a prog go on about ‘muh values’ or even worse ‘our values’ remember that amorality is a requirement to believe in the tenets of marxism. It’s like al taqiyah—it’s ok to tell any lie to advance the march of communism.