Posted on 07/15/2018 5:53:22 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
couldn’t agree more
Jeff can’t be counted on to do anything.
“finish them off...”
Yes, I agree.
But the question is, which is a more effective way of finishing them off - discrediting them politically, or locking them up?
Locking up a political enemy is how you create a martyr.
The problem with politicians charging other politicians with crimes is that politicians have the power to change the law. That’s why we call them “lawmakers”.
For this reason, the voters get very suspicious of lawmakers charging other lawmakers with crimes. Usually, the voters response is to discourage this behavior by punishing it in the voting booth.
The Democrats will pay dearly for this Mueller witch hunt - the Republicans will hold the Senate and House, and Trump will get reelected in a landslide.
If Trump were to sic his DOJ and AG on the Obama era officials and attempt to throw them in jail, as a lot of FReepers advocate, the majority of voters would see it as political retribution and express their disfavor - Trump would lose his bid for reelection.
Trump is winning politically - that’s the way to make long lasting change - not criminal prosecution, which creates martyrs and provokes immediate political retaliation.
Trump offered a good example of this a couple weeks ago when asked about the issue Democrats are making of children being separated from their parents at the border. He said that the Democrats are making a huge mistake, they are embracing open borders, which means allowing criminals to enter our country. They are being duped by criminals who kidnap or buy children from their real parents in order to get across the border - when it comes to light that the Democrats have allowed, even encouraged these atrocities and invited evil into our country - just to get votes - the Democrats are going to look very bad. Then Trump delivered the punch line: “with the positions they are taking, I don’t think the Democrats are ever going to win another election!”.
This is profound - and Trump is using America First to realign the political landscape across the board. America First is not only a political bonanza - it’s also the right thing - after all, an American POTUS should be representing the interests of the USA, not global interests. The fact that the Democrats are opposing America First on all fronts offers an amazing opportunity to marginalize the Democrat party and the globalist RINOs once and for all.
And this opportunity was not happenstance - Trump has spent the last three years baiting the Left into opposing him. His political incorrectness was part of it. His anti Islamic rhetoric and anti Mexican illegals rhetoric was purposely designed to bait the Left into opposing him. His tolerance of the Mueller witch hunt and Sessions’ recusal was all part of it - he has played the part of a wounded Nixon to a tee. The Left thinks there is blood in the water and circles like sharks - and they don’t even try to hide their shark fins. In order to draw contrast with Trump, they strike ever more radical and anti American positions. They oppose his smart policy with whatever the opposite is - which is, by definition, the stupid policy.
Trump is playing them. The Democrats, the RINOs, MSM, Hollywood - the Left is self destructing - without the need of putting them in jail.
Each month that goes by, I have more respect for Trump’s strategic leadership skills. Yet, the MSM and Hollywood still dismiss him as a clown.
I saw a preview on HBO(?) of an animated show called “Our Cartoon President” which depicts Trump as vain, weak and obnoxious. I suppose all the Leftists will watch it and think it’s hilarious and in their echo chamber, they’ll nod in agreement about what a sad state of affairs is that morons from the red states were able to elect such a moron as POTUS.
When it comes to opposing Trump, the Left has adopted a no holds barred approach, including shaming him for his physical appearance, even the color of his skin (orange, they say). They shame his press secretary for being fat and ugly - every day brings new examples of their shallow and bigoted true character. They don’t think Trump supporters and members of his cabinet should enjoy free speech. In so doing, they have given up all pretense of moral high ground. And all the while, the American people are watching and witnessing the downward spiral of the Left.
They have NO idea what is happening to them. They have NO idea what they are up against. They are so outmatched by this man that I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
“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.”
No, that’s not at all what I was saying.
I’m saying there are problems with opposing lawmakers trying to put each other in jail. I think Trump agrees with me - and will continue to direct his team to “stand down” when it comes to criminal prosecution of Obama’s minions.
If I’m wrong, then Trump will either replace Sessions with an aggressive AG or order Sessions to aggressively prosecute the Obama era crimes and criminals, including HRC - maybe even Obama himself! Mueller and Rosenstien will get fired. Perhaps, as some say, this won’t happen until Trump is safely past the midterms, having retained Republican control of the House and Senate.
If I’m right, the midterms will come and go, and still no indictments of the Obama minions.
Look, you and I can discuss the principle of equal justice all day long - and we’d mostly agree - but ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see what actually happens. I predict Trump will never lift a finger to put HRC or any other high level Obama official in jail.
It’s possible they’ll stumble on some evidence and someone like a Podesta will be indicted for something nonpolitical - like money laundering or tax evasion. But nobody is going to jail for Spygate or for the deep state coup attempt against Trump. Not Comey, not Clinton, not McCabe, not Lynch, not Rice, not Holder, not Zero, not Strozk, not Page, not Rosenstien not Mueller - yes they all participated in a coup attempt against Trump and a whitewash of Clinton crimes - but they will all skate - and Trump will let them skate. Trump has a bigger fish to fry, namely Leftism itself, which stands in the way of MAGA. Trump is going to bring them crashing down, but not by locking them up and making political martyrs out of them.
We’ll just have to wait and see if I’m wrong.
Sorry for taking so long to respond! Been short on time lately.
I agree with you on the battle against “The Left” and particularly in one of it’s forms that being the NEA.
I still strongly disagree that one politician e.g. the President successfully putting criminals like Hillary, Bill, Eric, Lynch, Podesta(s), Page, Strock, Comey etc etc is anything other than a good thing. I say that based upon my belief that “if you don’t”...……..then it only encourages other low life characters to do it again someday. Basically, your arguing for a two tier legal system. I am totally against that. I am a “let the chips fall where they may guy”.
We hung Hitler, Eichman, Tojo and Hussein among many others and theres been no repeats. Lol, as far as I’m concerned hanging would be too good for some of our democratic creeps.
“We hung Hitler, Eichman, Tojo and Hussein among many others and theres been no repeats.”
I didn’t know we hanged Hitler, but even if we did, there’s a If difference between that and hanging an ex POTUS, or ex SOS of the opposition party.
I’m not saying is would be ahad thing - but believe me, it wouldn’t go over.
For Trump’s sake and for the rest of sushi hope Trump might serve 6 more year and do some good, I sure hope he never takes the kind of advice you’re offering!
It is well intended, I’m sure, but....
I didn’t know we hanged Hitler, but even if we did, there’s a If difference between that and hanging an ex POTUS, or ex SOS of the opposition party.
*************************************************************
LOL, you got me on Hitler! I will be more careful in my responses to you in the future.
In the meantime, I don’t understand your use of the word “If” before the word “difference” in your sentence I cut and pasted above. Could you explain?
Then, maybe I can respond to your point.
“In the meantime, I don’t understand your use of the word “If” before the word “difference” in your sentence..”
Oops - that was autocorrect, or just a typo. It was meant to be “big” but somehow wound up being “If”. Maybe I hit the space bar instead of b and f instead of g..
My point was that following WWII, the American people’s judgment of Hitler’s crime and punishment was viewed through a non partisan lens.
By contrast, the Americam people’s judgment of a past POTUS, such as Obama, would be viewed through an extremely partisan lens, even if he was accused of the same crimes as Hitler.
ONLY the Republicans would be accusing him - the Democrats simply would not see his actions as criminal. He got reelected in 2012, AFTER he had abandoned an ambassador and six other diplomats to a cruel death in Ben Ghazi, and then covered up the fact that it was a terrorist attack - all to keep a foriegn policy failure from jeopardizing his reelection. Yet, when it was brought to light - Democrats were blind to it - they simply couldn’t (or wouldn’t) see it for what it was - and they still don’t. They reelected him in 2012, and if not for term limits he would still be POTUS today.
It doesn’t matter what the crime is - you can’t have a Republican administration convicting and executing a past Democrat POTUS!
Every single Democrat - half the country - would believe in their hearts that he was being wrongfully sentenced for political reasons - they would be unable to see any crime in what he did - the Republicams would be seen as tyrants - and who knows how many Republicans would be horrified by the execution of a POTUS?
I think it’s a terrible idea - and that’s why it will never, ever happen... not even close. Instead, they get term limitted out of office, and receive full pardons.
The pardon may seem unfair, but I believe without it, there would be utter chaos, as each newly elected administration publicly executed outgoing officials for what they considered crimes against the state. And since the executions would be considered treason by the opposition party, there would ensue an endless cycle of retribution.
It doesn’t matter what the crime is - you can’t have a Republican administration convicting and executing a past Democrat POTUS!
************************************************************
Ok, I’m going to select just your statement above to comment on.
I will AGREE with you on the “execution” part re Obama and mostly for the reasons you state.
But, your argument, if left to stand on the dozens or hundreds of others, would mean “right” doesn’t matter and “wrong” doesn’t matter when the perp is a high standing Democrat or Republican. Pure and simple that is a TERRIBLE precedent and message to send to future generations.
I believe that everyone UNDER Obama should be prosecuted for
any crime they committed because they were “wrong” and the “right’ thing to do is to be sure they all are treated the SAME as the rest of us would be under similar circumstances.
On Obama, I believe he is an aberration, a miscreant, disloyal and even an enemy of the United States.
His treachery would make Julius and Ethel Rosenberg look like a boy scout and girl scout. My how times have changed.
That said, I DO agree with you that he should not be executed. Just prosecuted. I would give him a life sentence and suspend it all but 1 year while putting him on probation for life. Indeed, Julius and Ethel would have loved that deal.
I don’t have a rock hard position on exactly what sentences would be “morally right” for politicians found guilty of political crimes.
If it were up to me to decide, I think I’d have a difficult time putting politics aside and I don’t think I’m alone in that.
Right now, for example, if you were to ask the American people if Donald Trump was guilty of “crimes against the state” I suspect most of the 50% of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton would be predisposed to say “yes”, while most of the 50% that voted for Trump would say “no”. If you were to ask the same question regarding Barrack Obama - you’d likely get the same split across political lines.
And I’m not talking about cynical partisanship - I’m talking about heartfelt beliefs. The Obama voters simply do not see what he did as a crime. The Trump supporters do not see Trump as commiting a crime.
With that level of predisposition along party lines, just imagine trying to select a jury.
So it’s not that I think political figures deserve leniency, its that I can’t see how they could get a fair trial given the depth of political predisposition toward guilt or innocence.
See, you put “fairness” in our judicial approach for the likes of Hillary, Lynch, Holder, Bill Clinton and on and on at the very tip top of your list of importance.
I don’t think that is the case at all. Juries are ALL a MIXTURE of Democrats and Republicans yet they do RIGHT in trials across this country every day. And, while some fail, I believe most observers think this “mixture” of humans do a pretty good job.
So, yes, elusive “fairness” is an important and lofty “goal”.
But I think the message that this country holds “equal justice for ALL”...... to be Literal...…………….not one level of justice for white male republicans and one for the opposite gender and brown or black skin...………..as more important.
“Juries are ALL a MIXTURE of Democrats and Republicans yet they do RIGHT in trials across this country every day.”
That’s true as long as the alleged crime has not been politicized.
Unfortunately, as we have witnessed over the past two weeks, some allegations are deeply politicized. The “jury” (the Senate Judiciary Committee) in the Kavanaugh hearings is made up of Democrats and Republicans, and because Trump, a Republican, nominated him - every single Democrat on the committee insists he is guilty, despite complete lack of evidence or corroboration.
If Obama were tried for treason, I suspect you would have the exact same problem - every Democrat would find him not guilty, regardless of the evidence. If Trump were tried for treason, every Democrat would find him guilty, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I wish it weren’t true, but sadly, it is.
Blindfold[edit]
18th-century Lady Justice at the Castellania
Since the 16th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents impartiality, the ideal that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status. The earliest Roman coins depicted Justitia with the sword in one hand and the scale in the other, but with her eyes uncovered.[5] Justitia was only commonly represented as “blind” since about the end of the 15th century. The first known representation of blind Justice is Hans Gieng’s 1543 s
“Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents impartiality....”
The blindfold is a symbol of an IDEAL, to which our justice system should aspire. I agree wholeheartedly with that aspiration.
However, in the real world justice is not always blind, especially in the realm of politics. We need look no further than the Bret Kavanaugh confirmation hearings to find a glaring example of that. Another example is the Mueller investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 elections, stacked with anti Trump prosecutors.
I don’t understand why you are still arguing the point. Do you believe Kavanaugh is being judged impartially by the Democrat Senate committee members? Do you trust Mueller’s team to be impartial?
Judiciary hearings are not a courtroom. We see that in the lousy half assed cross examination of Ford. Mueller is not suppose to be impartial. His job is to prosecute.
I think we’re getting off track here. My argument with you is simply that everyone below Obama should be prosecuted by the best prosecutors available on earth and put in jail as long as they can possibly be put in jail regardless of party affiliation or anything else. As you say, Lady Justice’s blindfold is a goal...……….we should strive to achieve it.
“My argument with you is simply that everyone below Obama should be prosecuted by the best prosecutors available on earth and put in jail as long as they can possibly be put in jail regardless of party affiliation or anything else.”
Why not Obama then? Either you agree that politicized allegations are problematic, or you don’t. Whatever logic you are using to give Obama a pass - why not use the same logic with his underlings?
I guess I don’t understand...
well, to be honest, I am very conflicted on the point...…….some of your arguments make sense when it involves the President of the United States...……………..but UNDERLINGS...……...no way!
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.