Posted on 01/10/2016 7:53:21 AM PST by don-o
No, I know nothing about law enforcement, despite having multiple cops, lawyers and other law enforcement professionals in my family. [/sarcasm] The point is that you are advocating selective prosecution based on a person's company's association with a political opponent for the primary purpose of putting political pressure on the opposition. As I said, sounds a lot like the mob or Obama: "That's a nice company your brother has; it'd be a shame if something happened to it..." That is an abuse of power and corruption on a grand scale, and the fact that you can't see that and continue to advocate for such actions should concern everyone.
If you are going to prosecute violations of the law because they are violations of the law, well and good. But if you are going to target specific people because they oppose you or because they give money to your opponents, that is political corruption, and no amount of rationalization on your part can change that.
As for the media narrative, Limbaugh disagrees with you,
Is that supposed to end the discussion? I have a great deal of respect for Rush, but he is not always right. So he and I will disagree on this one.
The very Rs you mention would probably prove compliant, just as they have for Reid and Obama. On both points that you raise, bear in mind that the Executive Branch is vastly larger than Congress and has enormously more resources, financial and otherwise. There are lots of ways, some subtle and some not, to influence the behavior of particular members of Congress. Moreover, I don’t think Trump would be shy about primarying a Senator who is trying to obstruct something important - deportations, for example. His biggest strength is that he evidently doesn’t care about what the DC norms are. I do wish he were as good on the issues as Cruz, which is why I support Cruz.
Wonderful, you aren’t a lawyer or a cop, but you know one, so you understand. What you are describing is not what I said. Prosecute (based on real violations of the law), convict, jail. Let the others think about it. It is called deterrence. Someone is always going to whine about it being “political”. So, should the Hildabeast get a pass on that basis even though there is no question she is a felon (on many counts, but the email scandal is indisputable)? The Bushes let the Clintons and other Ds get away with a lot of crimes for fear of being called names. That is also selective (non) prosecution. As for Rush, of course you don’t have to agree. But Trump is taking the “War on Women” theme and destroying Hilary with it. The MSM certainly doesn’t want that, but they are having to report it anyway. Who else has shown the ability to do that? Even if Trump flames out, he will have done a service by severely damaging Hillary.
You are so full of BS. This whole discussion started because I pointed out that Trump would not be able to do anything about the filibuster. Then YOU responded by saying all of the ways that Trump could pressure Senators, specifically including "investigations". Now that I pointed out that what you are suggesting is political corruption at its worst, you are now trying to backtrack and say that you didn't mean what you said just yesterday. Yep, you sound just like Trump!
Rubbish. Prosecuting corruption isn’t corruption. Investigating corruption isn’t corruption. I never discussed a quid pro quo. Just admit that you don’t understand all the moving pieces in the federal government or the dynamics actually at work. It isn’t 5th grade civics.
Yes, but that is not what you were saying. You were saying that Trump could prosecute the friends and donors of members of Congress who were opposing him as a way of putting pressure on Congress to do his bidding. That IS corruption. You made the mistake of actually being honest about what you want Trump to do - use the power of government to punish and intimidate those who stand in his way. And now you are desperately trying to backtrack and make it sound like you just want Trump to "prosecute corruption".
One of the problems with political partisans like you is that you will attempt to insert things that were neither said nor intended to reinforce your need to believe your candidate is better than others and that those who disagree with you are evil. I’ve seen this on FR in 2008 and 2012. Unlike you, I don’t view candidates in Manichean terms, and I’m not attached to Trump. None of the candidates is a god walking on earth. This all arose from someone wondering how Trump could deal with an at least somewhat hostile Congress. Anyone who actually knows what the federal government is today understands that there are many, many levers and pressure points for affecting Congress that you won’t understand from reading Article I. Whether a Trump, Cruz, Carson, or someone else avails himself of any given lever or pressure point can’t really be known at this point, but they do exist. You also don’t seem to understand that all prosecution is selective and that effective prosecutors, knowing that all criminals can’t be prosecuted (a resource constraint), try to go after the big fish to deter further criminality from the smaller fish. Probably nearly half the Rs and most of the Ds are actually felons, and there are many special interests tied to those members of Congress that have probably also committed felonies. It’s the influence those whose votes are for sale on subjects like immigration, deportation, spending, Keystone, etc. that have created the inability to pass legislation the country wants and needs. Prosecution of at least some of those members and their partners in crime would significantly further Trump’s claimed agenda, or Cruz’s, Paul’s, Rubio’s, or Carson’s for that matter. If you don’t care about discouraging and deterring the improper influence that makes Congress dysfunctional because you are afraid the left might try to smear you as a part of a “vast rightwing conspiracy”, fine. But it remains likely that investigating and prosecuting Congressional corruption would do a lot to stop the parliamentary games that the Ds and GOPe play.
How would any prosecution of Congress, result from an investigation of corruption, much less- remain likely?
Please, extoll your insight.
I’ve already explained it...and it isn’t a prosecution of Congress, but of members of Congress and allied special interests that have engaged in crimes. For example, a serious investigation into the financial affairs of Harry Reid would probably result in jail time. The gist of the point is that on immigration, for example, the reason Congress consistently tries to work against the wishes of the American people is that there are enough politicians who do the bidding of various special interests that we have ended up with nearly open borders. The relationships have gone on for so long on that and other matters without real scrutiny it is likely that in many cases legal lines of been crossed. The problem is that even government officials who commit obvious crimes are seldom called to account, so the practices continue and worsen. Investigation and prosecution would curtail much of the parliamentary gamesmanship that has been indulged in on behalf of, say, the SEIU or various business interests. It would simply be seen as too risky. Take a slightly different example, Hillary has obviously gotten away with felonies for years. The Clintons have never really been called to account, so her behavior continues and escalates. Now, instead of just feloniously acquiring cash (White Water and Cattle-Gate), she is leaving a trail of dead bodies and compromised national security information behind her. Congress is no different. About the only way a Congressman or Senator will be prosecuted is if his freezer is full of cash. There hasn’t been a serious investigation of Congressional sleaze since Abscam. Of course, it could be that I am wrong and that our esteemed members of Congress are pure as the driven snow. You can choose your side of the wager. ;-)
I have no wager.
The life of US American citizens is over.
Now, let’s see who survives- to anoint Our Nation with a fully re-Constituted Republic.
The truth of the matter is that I entirely agree with you.
Well, let’s make something good to eat, hug our loves and get ready, for the seemingly impossible tasks ahead.
I just repeated back what you said - I'm sorry if that is uncomfortable for you.
You didn’t, and I can’t minister any further to your psychological needs.
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.