Posted on 04/24/2020 4:49:28 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
When Trump said, 'You'd be in jail', Hillary and the derp state knew he meant it. That's when they turned up the heat on their takedown. They had to protect themselves at all costs.
Is it possible that the Donald saying later that Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted was his attempt to rectify his mistake of warning her (them) so that the derp/Hillary takedown could proceed under the radar, as it has been doing?
Think about that.
People need to look deeper and think harder.
Trump was playing fourth dimension chess!
If only I had looked deeper and thought harder.
Either that, or he's an idiot. I choose option A.
If only I had looked deeper and thought harder.
If only.
Your posts are always so full of interesting and agreeable thoughts that I (almost) don’t want to reply, lest my answer contain too much retort’, and not enough appreciation.
But having said that, here is my ‘retort’ :-)
“By the logic that says that we dare not prosecute Hillary Clinton, we must, to be consistent, have refrained from defending Brett Cavanaugh.”
I think this is a false dichotomy. Defending someone and prosecuting someone have completely different (opposite) burdens of proof. Our justice system regards individual freedom so highly, that whenever there is a shadow of a doubt, we must judge in favor of not restricting that freedom. That is what “innocent until proven guilty” is based on.
And here’s the kicker: in politics there is always a shadow of a doubt (and far, far beyond) and it’s not one juror quietly disagreeing with the other eleven. It is approximately 60 million “jurors” disagreeing with the other 60 million.
So, what I meant by “The American people can’t handle...” was not that voters would sacrifice justice for the political expediency of getting Trump re-elected. But neither did I mean that voters would sacrifice justice to protect our constitutional system. I didn’t mean voters would sacrifice justice at all for any reason.
What I really meant was that, apart from the obvious role of determining who is elected President, and the slightly less obvious role of protecting our constitutional system through a peaceful transition of power every four years, nation-wide presidential elections also serve a third role:
They offer an opportunity for the people to voice opinions on various issues of importance to them. We sometimes call them “mandates”. We often disagree on what the mandate was, how clear it was, or whether there even was one, but candidates run on issues, ideas, promises, platforms, etc... so the voters aren’t voting just for the person - but also for ideas and promises they campaign on.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that Hillary Clinton had been prosecuted, convicted and locked up in 2017 by Donald Trump’s DOJ, and that, being a convicted felon, she was ineligible to run for POTUS in 2020.
Now, let’s assume that most of the 60 million plus Americans who had voted for her in 2016 loudly disapproved, and believed it was political retribution by a Republican administration, not justice.
Let’s say that amidst this outcry, there arose a Democrat nominee who campaigned on the promises of fully pardoning Hillary Clinton, ordering his incoming DOJ to overturn her guilty verdict, and putting her back on track for the Presidency, by appointing her as VP.
Finally, let’s say the outcome of that election was that the Democrat challenger lost, say 48% to Trump’s 52%. 58 million votes to 62 million votes.
So, the fear of Trump losing his re-election bid proves unfounded. And the fear of endangering the peaceful transition of power and our constitutional system also proves unfounded. (Those weren’t my fears anyway, but just to eliminate them from the equation, let’s say they were proven unfounded).
But I am still uneasy about the whole outcome. Why? Because I know that those 58 million pro Hillary Clinton voters were not only voting to choose a President, and to facilitate a peaceful transition of power, but they were also loudly and clearly rendering their verdict regarding Hillary Clinton’s guilt or innocence.
Now, I understand that voters in a Presidential election are not jurors in a criminal trial. But it is hard to ignore 58 million voters insisting she is innocent, and claim that her guilt was established “beyond a shadow of doubt”.
Especially when the DOJ that convicted her was serving at the pleasure of a Republican President (her opponent in the previous election) and when all 62 million voters saying she is guilty happen to belong to the opposing political party!
Look, I don’t doubt that she’s guilty - she and most of Obama’s top brass grossly abused their power, weaponized their offices and agencies, and attempted to subvert the will of the people. They deserve to rot in prison (or in Hell) and I would have no problem casting my vote that way - whether I was one of 12 jurors, or one of 120 million voters.
Either way, our justice system doesn’t allow us to lock her up when there is a shadow of a doubt - and I’d say 58 million voters disagreeing would qualify as a shadow of a doubt.
A simpler way of stating the whole conundrum is this:
If Hillary Clinton was locked up, the Democrats would claim “This verdict was not about justice, this verdict was about politics”. How could we dispute that claim, when they would be so obviously right?
If 99% of Democrats would vote “not guilty”, and 99% of Republicans would vote “guilty”, can we deny the possibility that it was a politically driven verdict? And if it possible that it was politically driven, does that not cast a shadow of doubt? And if there is doubt, can there be true justice?
Senator Sasse patiently outlined the reasons why these confirmation hearings have become so contentious. His remarks were little noted but they should be part of the basic education of every American voter and part of the conservative catechism. The legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility to the executive branch, including its subterranean bureaucratic agencies who actually make law, prosecute violations, adjudicate alleged violations, and inflict punishment. The result leaves ultimate control of the government, that is to say the control of the executive branch, in the hands of the Supreme Court as the venue of last resort. Regrettably, that branch has been only too willing to become a political agent intervening (or more often not intervening when good cause exists) not just in matters bureaucratic, matters economic, but also in matters deeply personal and fundamental (see, for example, Justice Scalia's increasingly urgent dissents in the abortion cases and in the Texas sodomy case).
Senator's Sasse's searing indictment: the confirmation process has inevitably become political because the Supreme Court has become political. It has transgressed the line and crossed over from justice into politics. When justice becomes polluted with politics, politics counterattacks. Hence the politicization of the Cavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Whether the organs of justice intrude into the realm of politics or the political world pollutes justice, the first casualty is the rule of law, then disillusionment with the system, and ultimately, political and juridical disintegration. It avails nothing to distinguish between Congress politicizing the confirmation process or the court politicizing "social justice." Nor does it avail to distinguish between politicizing the decision to prosecute in order to refrain from prosecuting (Hillary) or the decision to politicize prosecutions to weaponize the law to undo elections (Moeller investigation).
The political decision to refrain from prosecuting Hillary Clinton as an example of a political decision to affect an election by perverting the law. FBI director Comey uttered two egregious lies when he said that no prosecutor would prosecute Mrs. Clinton and, second, when he said that she could not be prosecuted for want of mens rea. These are not arguable assertions, no mens rea was required to convict Hillary Clinton of her crime because the crime itself required none.
Under these circumstances to argue that the voters might or might not have forgiven Hillary Clinton for her transgressions means that a political decision not to prosecute so she would be elected should be excused is to descend to rank relativism. It is to say that the very evil complained of justifies the same evil one more time. It is to surrender to politicization of the whole process, a surrender which as we shall see, is illegitimate. ¶ To say: "If 99% of Democrats would vote “not guilty”, and 99% of Republicans would vote “guilty”, can we deny the possibility that it was a politically driven verdict? " Means that two distinct, separate and presumably coequal branches of government are to be put aside merely because the country on a given issue is politically divided is to surrender to the mob. Suppose the great majority of the people were determined to literally crucify Hillary unto death without a trial, would you grant the majority's will so cavalierly? I think not.
Just as of our Bill of Rights is a matter of absolute right and certainly not a question of majority rule, so is due process and so should be the Justice Department of the executive no less than the third branch. Majority rule, or a lack of majority rule, is not a substitute for due process. Due process has nothing whatever to do with majority rule. It does not have to do with popular opinion. It does not have to do with vote tallies in a general election for president when many issues besides the issue of the guilt or innocence of Hillary Clinton was clearly at stake and the motivation of voters is entirely unfathomable.
To turn the judicial process, including prosecution as well as the trial itself, over to the mob is to kill constitutional government.
Thank you for an interesting and enlightening exchange.
I think it’s funny that when you have 60 million people wanting to lock her up, and 60 million people urging restraint - you are calling the latter “mob rule”! It’s usually the lynching party that is referred to as a “mob” - not those urging restraint!
Our justice system should place the burden of proof entirely on the prosecution. When it comes to locking people up, or hanging them, restraint is a good thing - it’s built into our system - it’s called presumption of innocence.
Our justice system has profoundly failed us over the last four years, NOT by its failure to lock up Hillary Clinton, but by it’s systematic failure to afford President Trump and other political targets the presumption of innocence.
The inversion is also true:
Our justice system has profoundly failed us over the last four years when it systematically failed to afford president Trump and other political targets the presumption of innocence because it got away with failing to lock Hillary Clinton up.
New evidence is expected today or tomorrow concerning further atrocities committed by the FBI in the Mueller prosecution of General Flynn and before. If that evidence is released to the public will you condone failing to prosecute those FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors for criminality as and when it is shown?
If your answer is "no, of course such illegality must be prosecuted," do you agree that it must be done in order to deter further criminality?
Durham was working on the case almost a year before he was "officially" assigned to the case.
It's possible that Scarpelli was working on the case a long time before he "officially" popped up. Same with tons of other resources. Sneaky stuff.
The commies are bouncing off the walls, freaking out daily, sweating, squirming, lashing out. They're easy to spot.
The Trump team(s) seem calm, cool, collected, and in control. Stealthy, sneaky, hard to spot.
Greatest show on earth.
“If your answer is “no, of course such illegality must be prosecuted,” do you agree that it must be done in order to deter further criminality?”
Yes, I do agree. I am confident that you and I are on the same page as far as what we WANT to see happen, what would be just, and what would strengthen the Republic.
I argued with you over a practical matter which is fairly academic, possibly moot, and entirely subjective on my part.
Namely, my opinion that there exists in this country somewhat of a “too big to fail” mentality, a weakness, a lack of strictness and will, which shields top tier leftist politicians and other celebrities from certain legal consequences.
If I appear to be defending or condoning this mentality, this weakness - perhaps it is because I feel it is a flaw that is a byproduct of something else, and I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.
For example, in many contests, a deceitful man will always win against man who is bound to tell the truth. So, is deceit a strength, and honesty a weakness?
The bottom line for me is that I am resigned to the reality that Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and a long list of other top leftists will never pay for their crimes. As Rumsfeld said: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have.”
I don’t like it, but I think I understand it.
It is because honest, humble, freedom-loving people are vulnerable. Their love of freedom makes them reluctant to investigate and coerce others, and their honesty and humility make them yield to the limitations of their ability to judge.
To the deceitful Left, these virtues offer opportunities to exploit, blind spots and dark corners where they can hide.
Remember - this isn’t a defense of evil - I am just saying that, like it or not, there is no way Hillary Clinton is ever going to jail. So, given that reality, I’ll be satisfied if we can just defeat her politically, discredit her and her kind, and prevent them from ever again holding a high office or position of influence.
I hear your position and understand the pragmatism. But I also believe that if nothing is done to those who conspired to treason, then the republic is doomed. Gone are the days when you could embarrass these vermin into retirement and put them out to pasture. They are only emboldened by the inaction of the (in)justice system.
Right. It’s not even “pragmatism” on my part though. I’m not advocating or condoning anything, and whatever I think will have no bearing on the outcome anyway.
I’m just observing that Hillary Clinton is nowhere close to going to jail - and I’d bet the farm the she never will. I’m way past hoping that reality will change - just trying to understand why, and learn to live with the reality that it is so.
Meanwhile, I do still hold out hopes that we are not doomed - that the Left will self-destruct, that perhaps President Trump is preparing some nice traps for them - that they can be discredited, and defeated politically, if not prosecuted legally.
However, if the only alternatives are that either Hillary Clinton goes to jail, or we are doomed, then I would have to say we are doomed.
Daunting as it may be, I say let us soldier on together and pass along to the next generations something at least as good as we got.
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.