-PJ
Posted on 07/15/2018 5:53:22 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
So, no matter how real the Obama era crimes were (and they were very real), any indictments and prosecutions and jail sentences served on Democrats will be seen as political bullying by Republicans - it will mean nothing! The only verdict that counts in politics is the one given by the voters.
*************************************************************
Sir, I think you make some good points but your argument that Republicans and Democrats should be left alone and not prosecuted based upon some “perception” of “political bullying” that some might conjure up in their little minds, thereby kind of handing them (pols on both sides) a sort of “exemption” from BASIC LAW is....., pick your adjective. I’ll be polite and just say “crazy”.
I can live with that...
afterall, we have to live with a lot of things we don't like...like basketball players getting $150million dollar contracts and those taking care of the elderly barely making minimum wage...
HOWEVER, Trump has to realize that the left does not quit, does not retreat, does not regret their illegalities, and will definately be back to do it all again...like jaws...
finish them off...
Wimpy Magoo is in charge, nice.
My breath - I’m not holding it.
Yes.
Save the apology. It would be a long shot that you'd ever have to offer it. Sessions is only there to hold his dream title of "AG of the US".
Appitizer before the election and main course after the election....
It would appear that Jeff Sessions doesn’t hold anything other than a title.
Trump will release an EO soon that will unclassify and make public the documents RR is refusing to release.
When that happens it's SHTF bigly!
“I voted for President Trump for a number of reasons, the most important of which was his promise to clean up the Deep State.”
Of course - I know that locking up Democrats was priority #1 for many of us - I’m just saying we are in a very small minority. We are simply not going to get our wish on that score - and I hope people can come to realize it’s asking too much of Trump to expect him to be our avenging angel.
The electorate as a whole is not interested in political retribution.
By the way, it is possible to clean up the deep state without Trump throwing Obama officials in jail.
“a sort of “exemption” from BASIC LAW is....., pick your adjective. I’ll be polite and just say “crazy”.
You say its basic law, but its not - the party in power (Republicans) would be convicting the party out of power (Drmocrats) and the support for it and the dissent against it is 100% along party lines.
Don’t you see the problem?
I watched the hearings - it’s 100% along party lines! That’s not what a fair trial looks like. Even if the Democrats are guilty as hell (which they are) they can’t get a fair trial when all Democrats have already prejudged them innocent and all Republicans have prejudged them as guilty.
And I’m not talking about appearances.
I do not care what the dems do.
I care that the GOP does not even have a good candidate.
Dianne Feinstein stole $2 billion in taxpayer money and directed into her husbands business. Nearly $1 billion of it for the train to nowhere.
I suspect the other democrats are mad because she did not share the money with the party members.
There is something inherently wrong with that modification of the original "vote by the people."
The vote by the people becomes meaningless when only one party is represented. In the current sick political climate that is unacceptable.
When was this "law" created?
How many citizens in California are aware when this "little change" took place?
Was it a simple law or a Constitutional Amendment?
How did the California elected criminals manage to defraud the California citizen electorate to accept a clearly unConstitutional change?
When does the final nail in the 'representative democracy' coffin be pounded in and make California a monocameral legislature?
There is something inherently wrong with that modification of the original "vote by the people."
The vote by the people becomes meaningless when only one party is represented. In the current sick political climate that is unacceptable.
The original "balance of power" arrangement for the system of government deemed the best over the last 300 years was supposed to forever prevent a government decided by a single individual. When was this "law" created?
How many citizens in California are aware when this "little change" took place?
Was it a simple law or a Constitutional Amendment?
How did the California elected criminals manage to defraud the California citizen electorate to accept a clearly unConstitutional change?
When does the final nail in the 'representative democracy' coffin be pounded in and make California a monocameral legislature?
-PJ
I watched the hearings - it’s 100% along party lines! That’s not what a fair trial looks like. Even if the Democrats are guilty as hell (which they are) they can’t get a fair trial when all Democrats have already prejudged them innocent and all Republicans have prejudged them as guilty.
**************************************************************
LOL, you’ve probably not been in many jury trials. If you had, as I have, you would discover, as I did, that something miraculous often happens. 12 jurors (in my case 6) suddenly start taking their responsibilities really serious and in my case, in 3 jury trials, over about 3 years, on the same issue, I WON.
Now, I was a Republican, a gray headed white guy developer, with a high powered lawyer going on trial for what could have been a huge amount of fines on an environmental issue in a special environmental court.
The jurors were as Liberal as liberal gets residing in the hardest core liberal inner city in America. The average guy or gal on the street HATES developers notwithstanding they all live in buildings created by developers.
They voted for the nasty old developer 3 times in 3 completely different juries in one day trials on an environmental issue.
There was absolutely no question that they set aside their liberalism to vote for the old white guy developer out of an innate sense of what’s wrong and what’s right.
So, your point that Democrats would think someone like say Rosenstein, Comey, Lynch, Holder or McCabe was innocent and Republicans would think he/she was guilty is probably true...…………...on the street.
But, in a courtroom, where magic is in the air, it is possible and often happens that prejudices are set aside. I KNOW first hand.
With respect, “No one is above the law” trumps your argument. To do otherwise is to surrender “what’s right” to “what’s wrong”.
That may be true with people off the street; politicians are hardly people. 90% are 100% owner by special interests.
“With respect, “No one is above the law” trumps your argument. To do otherwise is to surrender “what’s right” to “what’s wrong.””
Your faith in the integrity of jurors is encouraging - I don’t have any experiential basis for questioning it.
In fact, I’ve often pointed to a similar behavioral phenomena exhibited by voters, known as “the wisdom of the masses”, in which they seem to render a collective judgment “wiser” than the sum of their individual moralities.
Also, I completely agree with the concept of equal justice - that no one should be above the law.
However, my argument conflicts with neither of your well taken points: I am saying that there exist “crimes” so political that we must question whether they are crimes in the normal sense.
A crime is a violation of a law. A law is a man-made behavioral boundary which is subject to change when enough lawmakers [politicians] deem a change is warranted.
Politicians and political activists dedicate their lives to changing the laws - and once changed, bolstering them to make them resistant to change. As the law changes, criminal behavior can become noncriminal, and non criminal can be one criminal, over night. Not all laws, or lawmakers, are “good”. The dynamic of changing laws and thereby changing what is a crime, is a necessary part of a healthy republic - it may be called “justice” in its ideal form, but it’s called “politics” in its practical form.
One of the ways activists push for change in laws is known as “civil disobedience”. It’s one of the grey areas where, when prosecuting a crime, the political nature of the “crime” must cause us to question whether it is a crime in the first place.
I think Trump should fight for equal justice even in political crimes - but rather than put Democrats in jail, perhaps he could acheive that equality by pardoning Republicans who have been caught up in Democrat witch hunts.
To repeat, I do agree a jury can rises above politics and do the right thing, and I do believe in equal justice under the law.
But that’s not what’s at issue here. What’s at issue here is that political criminality is in the eye of the beholder.
Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of emails in order to cover up pay-for-play schemes in which she sold access to state department to the highest bidder, her complicity in Benghazi cover up in which Obama and Clinton abused his entire executive branch to sweep foriegn policy disaster under the rug until he was safely reelected... etc., etc., etc., these are truly egregious crimes in the eyes of you, me and every single other American who voted against Obama or Clinton.
But the Americans who supported Obama and Clinton simply do not accept those narratives. They do not see those crimes. They literally watch a different news channel, where different narratives are depicted, different stories are told. Their stories have different actors, different crimes, different criminals. They think our truths are false narratives.
They really believe Hillary is innocent and Trump is guilty and those questions are never going to be put before a jury to decide forensically. When the accused and the accusers are politicians (lawmakers) it’s always going to be a question of whether it SHOULD be a crime.
There is a similar situation where the equal justice doctrine is stood on its head - namely, diplomatic immunity. I’ve always wondered why a foriegn diplomat can be “untouchable”. Perhaps diplomats need that immunity to induce them to enter our jurisdiction - if we want them here, that’s the price we pay, offering them immunity.
Maybe it’s the same with politicians - if we want good people to enter public service - and run for public office - knowing they are entering a snake pit of lawmakers who have the power to turn their political enemies into criminals simply by changing a law - maybe we have to offer them immunity.
Otherwise, why would anyone in their right mind ever run for public office?
But the Americans who supported Obama and Clinton simply do not accept those narratives. They do not see those crimes. They literally watch a different news channel, where different narratives are depicted, different stories are told. Their stories have different actors, different crimes, different criminals. They think our truths are false narratives.***************************************************
For simplicity/brevity, let’s dissect your first sentence in the above chain of sentences, to wit: First, you call Democrats “Americans”. A minority are but the majority are not either through self proclamation or they are here illegally or they hate the country. Because of this, many do not see illegal immigration as illegal, some do not see the border as legal, some do not see pedofilia as illegal and some see murder as ok too and some see armed robbery as “just fine” if you need the money. Under your theory, because these people are Democrats they are entitled to exemption from the BASIC LAWS all the rest of us have to obey.
You said you agree that “no one is above the law”. You can’t have it both ways. The democrats must be prosecuted for their law breaking during the Obama administration. Anything less is a prescription for more of the same and eventual anarchy years down the road.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.