Ooooh, tell me that fairy tale again, Daddy. That one’s my favorite.
No One Is Above The Law? Give Me A Break
Plenty of people are “above the law.” James Clapper, who lied under oath to Congress about spying on the American people, is above the law. John Brennan, who lied about a domestic spying operation on Senate staffers, is above the law. Unlike Trump advisor Peter Navarro, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was never going to be handcuffed and thrown in prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena. He is above the law.
Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, is also above the law. The then-Secretary of State set up a private server in her home to circumvent transparency surrounding her slush-fund foundation. She sent 110 emails containing marked classified information, and 36 of those emails contained secret information. Eight of the email chains contained “top secret” information. Every one of those instances was a potential felony punishable with up to ten years in prison.
We learned all of this from James Comey, then FBI director, who noted that Hillary had been “extremely careless” in conducting her business. Comey didn’t recommend charges because, he claimed, the state couldn’t prove Clinton’s intent — even though “gross negligence,” not intent, was the only standard he needed. Gross negligence and extreme carelessness are synonyms. Comey concocted a new standard to protect Clinton because she is above the law.
When Hillary’s husband, also above the law, perjured himself under oath, Democrats argued that puritanical conservatives were only pursuing Bill because of some trumped-up charge over “sex.” Using that logic, Trump’s campaign finance charges related to Stormy Daniels’ “hush money” are also about sex. This is different because Trump is the boogeyman, and everyone knows he’s guilty of something. The important thing is getting that mug shot.
Don’t worry, though; former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “Everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.” By “everyone,” she means Republicans. And if you think this authoritarian formulation is an accident, you haven’t been paying attention. When Democrats were smearing Brett Kavanaugh as a (gang) rapist a few years back, Mazie Hirono was asked whether the then-nominee deserved the “same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” After all, this wasn’t about any judicial disagreement but about alleged criminal behavior. The Hawaii senator responded, “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.”
In other words, if you’re a conservative, your politics are evil; and if your politics are evil, you’re probably evil. I imagine that was the rationalization used by Kamala Harris when reading obvious fabrications about Kavanaugh into the Congressional Record. It is likely the rationalization of Lois Lerner or Merrick Garland — both above the law — when they weaponized government agencies against political opponents. It is almost surely the rationalization of Alvin Bragg. This is what justifies the contemporary left’s increasing comfort with deploying the state to punish and destroy political enemies. For many progressives, the legal system isn’t merely a tool for criminal justice (if that) but a way to exact poetic political justice.
Like every other soiled, battered American institution which has been perverted and warped by them, the “justice” system is there strictly as a convenience for them—a tool, yes, to be used as they see fit in pursuit of their malignant authoritarian agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would correct the contention to say that “No REPUBLICAN is above the law.” But that doesn’t even cut it. That would be suggesting that Republicans who break the law are prosecuted while Dems who break the law are not. And that’s not what happened here – Trump didn’t break the law. Or, if by the narrowest of standards he did, it was a misdemeanor with an expiration date of sometime in 2018. This is worse. They will make up “crimes” by Republicans while ignoring actual crimes by Democrats.
This is a Third World level prosecution, done by a Third World prosecutor. A bigger concern is this – now that the dam has been broken, what other specious indictments are heading Trump’s way? To be clear, I do not believe that he has committed a single crime. In fact, from a legal perspective, he may be the cleanest elected official of our time, considering how many investigations have happened. But that won’t stop other prosecutors from doing Stalin-esque “show me the man” prosecutions. I think there are probably more waiting, and they were just waiting to see who jumped first. Trump should not have dignified the process by surrendering.
“Trump should not have dignified the process by surrendering.”
Surrendering? That’s what you think he did? And what would you have him do different? Stay in Florida? Protected by DeSantis, that same guy that said he wouldn’t get involved just a couple weeks back? No travel to any states outside because he would be subject to arrest?
Trump did the only reasonable thing an actual American can do, showed up and now the fight begins. That you think he surrendered just shows your intellectual infirmity.
Ummm…Binary Barry, “surrendering” is the legal term for turning oneself in to law enforcement to answer charges. My God, you are a fucking moron.
As far as what he should have done? Yes. Stay in Florida. Why the fuck not? He had nothing to lose. If DeSantis doesn’t protect him, he has another weapon to use in his constant campaign against the Governor.
On the other hand, if DeSantis stares down the Feds and the Feds blink, then DeSantis looks like a hero. Again. That’s probably what Trump was afraid of.
I did not think you were using it in that simple way, but in that case I am wrong about the term used.
And you’re a damn fool. Of course you would have Trump stay in Florida for fear of arrest. You hate Trump and support the deep state in their attempts to stop him at any cost.
Trump is afraid? You are truly a fucking idiot. He is the bravest SOB in our political system.
You are deranged, unhinged. And all because of one man that chose to fight back against a corrupt system for the benefit of Americans.
Sure, why not, it’s a weak case, with an incomplete indictment. The 34 counts are the same crime, just separated in time, not as to material facts, persons, or places. Innocence on one count is a basis for innocence on all. And charging as a felony under NY law requires the intent to conceal another crime, and that crime is neither alleged nor charged, so the felony counts can turn back into misdemeanors, so a motion for a bill of particulars, then a motion for summary judgment on the insufficiency of the indictment is in order. Once the felonies turn into misdemeanors, they’re time-barred, so another motion for summary judgment, and that flushes the case.
What happened in those Kavanaugh hearings is instructive – in the hearing room they fought like rabid cats, and then they had two 15 minute breaks to vote on a bill to give nearly a trillion dollars to the National Security State and Military Industrial Complex. No party line vote, it was total bipartisanship – 97 for, 3 against.