The press and the Democrats are constantly hysterical about Trump. The idea that the only way to respond to their lying and screaming is by appeasement is insane. Europe tried the appeasement route pre-WWII; how’d that work out?
Appeasing the Left/evil only feeds their bloodlust. Appeasing them with Sessions’ recusal and a dirty, relentless coup attempt by Hillary-fixer Mueller was beyond insane. It has subsumed what should have been the best, strongest part of Trump’s presidency and created an insatiable Leftist lust for Trump’s head on a platter. It was a monumental show of weakness and the Left, like all thugs, respond to weakness by demanding blood.
A strong AG could have begun the investigation by examining the illegal FISA warrants. The best defense is an offense. There were many outright lies told in order to secure the illegal surveillance. Start by exposing those lies. Move on to other Leftist malfeasance. (It’s a target rich environment.) Be aggressive. Keep them on defense. Strength is the only response that evil understands.
respond = responds
“A strong AG could have begun the investigation by examining the illegal FISA warrants. The best defense is an offense.”
Thanks for the very well thought out response - it comes very close to answering my question. I understand being on the offensive and not appeasing.
What I wanted to know is what tangible results (visible to the public), like specific indictments or arrests of top level Clinton or Obama administrators, would we have seen - and which or how many specific terminations of top level deep state bureaucrats do you think we would we have seen in the early months - if we’d had a strong AG?
The second part of my question was - how would the MSM and rabid Left (which neither of us want to appease) - how would they have responded to this assertive AG? After firing a bunch of the key deep state traitors, would they have backed off out of respect for the show of strength? After indicting a bunch of corrupt career politicians from past administrations - would they run for cover because there’s a new sheriff in town?
I’m not suggesting appeasement is better - I’m just asking how you think the tough AG’s toughness would have gone over - would it have scared them into submission or would it have escalated the “war” on Trump? I’m not saying good or bad - just asking what you think the landscape would look like right now if we’d done it your way?
What I’m getting at of course, is that when we “walk softly and carry a big stick”, there are several reasons why we should walk softly - and appeasement is NOT one of them. One reason to walk softly is stealth. A second reason is so as to remain alert - in a listening mode - so as to be aware of the enemy’s movements. A third reason is to constantly offer the enemy an optional course of action to resolve the dispute without bloodshed.
I worry that some on our side are so angry that they want blood - they wouldn’t accept a draining of the swamp unless it involved Clinton’s in jail.
I’d love to see Clintons in jail but I don’t think that will ever happen - nomatter who is AG.