Good.
On one of Sunday’s talking head shows, Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY), whom you might remember pre-diet as one of the most vociferous defenders of President Clinton during the House impeachment hearings, said that there was no question that President Trump had obstructed justice. Asked why, then, the House wasn’t seeking impeachment, Nadler said, “We don’t have the facts yet.” Yes, it’s that again: “the resistance” is positive that the President broke the law somewhere, some how, without any evidence that he broke the law. They just know, that’s all. I’ve been reading Trump-deranged commenters making the same set of arguments for three years now, usually followed by, “If he’s innocent, what’s he afraid of?,” a statement that sounds more comfortable in German, Russian, or Chinese.
This is not how our justice system or our political system is supposed to work, nor is it a proper use of Congress’s investigation and oversight powers. As as been typical of the Democrats’ Bizarro World reasoning, Rep. Elijah Cummings called the President’s defiance an attack on the Separation of Powers. No, it is an attack on the Separation of Powers when Congress cynically sets out to interfere with the ability of the Executive to discharge his Constitutional duties by launching endless, unjustified investigations. In particular, the President is performing a national service by refusing to allow Congress to demand his tax returns. The tax returns of all American must be confidential and private. If Congress can demand and acquire anyone’s tax returns based on speculation alone, then no citizen’s tax documents are safe.
Obama Whisperer David Axelrod inadvertently spoke the truth in a tweet that said,
“Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the “witch-hunt” meme.”
This has been widely, and I believe fairly, translated as “If we are going to have a witch hunt, we shouldn’t be so obvious about it.” Only time will tell whether Democrats playing to their mouth-foaming, Trump-crazed base will prevail (with the help of the news media’s slanted reporting), but once again, it seems to be aimed at the more gullible and less intelligent voter. Over at Althouse, the mostly moderate commentariat seemed to see through the sham pretty easily. Examples:
- “When is a witch hunt not a witch hunt? When it’s a fishing expedition.”
- “It’s a Democrat party power grab. Witchhunt is just a description of means, not intent.”
- “Can’t wait for civil libertarians to come to the defense of the individuals caught up in this abuse of power. Oh wait. This does not rise to the level of a witch hunt. It is worse.”
- “Keep checking off boxes on the Witch Hunt checklist and it’s only a matter time before Republicans Pounce! and claim it’s a witch hunt.”
And many, many more.
In a related development, a useless and predictable poll is being widely celebrated that claims that a majority of Americans think that Trump committed crimes prior to being elected. I guess its a good teaching aid for confirmation bias classes: Republicans mostly don’t think he committed crimes, and Democrats overwhelmingly do. Note that most polled aren’t lawyers, so they really have only a vague idea what a crime is. (Paying off a porn star who’s blackmailing you is not a crime, for example.) Note also that it is not surprising that the news media’s constant “Trump may have…” stories have an effect on polling.
If I had to choose, I’d say the odds favor Trump violating one or more laws as a private citizen and businessman. Most individuals in his fields—hotels, construction and casinos, not to mention show business—break laws. Also most people like Trump, who do not have fully functioning ethics alarms, tend to break laws too. However, whether the public thinks someone broke laws or not has little value, especially when such a question is selectively asked. I know Hillary Clinton committed crimes. If Democrats weren’t bothered by that, why should I care whether they think Trump broke laws too?
Ethics Alarms 
Now that is an armor piercing question.
This is no longer obstruction but sabotage.
The resistance is full of anti-democratic people who are simply cloaking their totalitarian ideology and bullying of a duly elected president. Will someone please just say, after two years, to Mueller, Schiff, et.al., put up or shut up and go away. I wonder how many of the resistance could stand up to a quarter of the scrutiny already given to President Trump. Guessing very few.
As much as it reeks of ‘tit-for-tat,’ it may very well take exactly that to show the resistance (and Congress) the error of their ways.
Anyone got a better way to stop this insanity?
I’m disappointed that there is a lack of exactly that. Why isn’t Lois Lerner getting the full probe? How about James Comey? I bet if they look hard, they’ll find process crimes with both.
Start with them and then work your way through everyone you can.
Of course Trump broke laws.
So did I. So did Jack. EVERYONE breaks laws every day they draw breath. This is a fishing expedition to find them and prosecute anything at all. There are so many laws from so many jurisdictions that you cannot live outside a rubber room and not actively break one.
“…the Congressional Research Service cannot even count the current number of federal crimes… If the federal government can’t even count how many laws there are, what chance does an individual have of being certain that they are not acting in violation of one of them?”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/federal-copyright-laws-americans-break-them-every-day-without-even-knowing-it/5381302
For instance: It is illegal to lie down and sleep with your shoes on in North Dakota; singing off-key is illegal in North Carolina; unmarried Florida women who parachute face jail time; taking a picture of a rabbit (without a permit) from January to April is verboten; walking a dog without a diaper (on the dog) is forbidden in Mississippi; and California insists you not eat an orange in a bathtub.
Take a picture of a rabbit? This one is easy to prove, too: Metadata in digital pictures can tell the time, date, and location of a photo. Post that little indiscretion online and *poof* you are a criminal.
Those are only some looney state laws. Federal laws include confusing copyright infringement with terrorism; taking a fake sick day is “a scheme or artifice to defraud” your company; and failing to affix a mandatory sticker to your UPS package could send you to prison. (You likely break copyright law any time you forward a meme, email, or text someone else created that violates the law… and those laws have TEETH!)
We all have heard of the ‘lying to a federal agent’ non-crime. We know where it has been abused lately, at the highest levels, even where it seems no false statements were made. How does that apply to you? Say you tell a National Park ranger that you cleaned your campsite. He then finds a paper plate you missed. You just lied to a federal agent.
The Lacey Act states it is illegal to “import, export, sell, acquire or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.”
Think about this. You go to WalMart and purchase a cool hat, made of natural fibers. As it turns out, the fibers were sourced from Honduras, and were harvested out of season by Honduran statute. You did not harvest the fibers. You did not make the hat. You did not import the hat. But those activities broke foreign law, and you purchasing the fibers in the hat violates The Lacey Act. Don’t think innocent Americans have not been sentenced to prison for similar violations. All it takes is someone to notice and decide to prosecute.
In this way alone, we all are very likely to have verboten products in our home, or or office, or church… you get the picture. A search warrant for, say, drugs, executed on the wrong address (and that finds no drugs) could be used to apply The Lacey Act, just to cover up the government’s error.
I have not scratched the surface at the laws we break. Own your own business and the complexities multiply by a factor of 100.
All it takes is for you to become a target.
Given the way progressives go after those who oppose them, or simply are not ‘woke’ enough, how long until they clamor for such a fishing expedition for someone who uses the wrong pronoun? You deserve to be destroyed for your transgender transgression, and any means necessary are legit for progressives. So an investigation finds that you bought that hat… and the full force of federal law is imposed upon you… even if you are progressive. (May God have mercy on your soul if you are Republican or, worse, conservative.)
Serves you right!
Trump had better not cooperate with these investigations: they are legal traps waiting to be sprung in an effort to thwart a legitimate election.
I’m usurping Jack and awarding you CotD. You’re welcome.
It’s a coup! (…don’t tell Chris)
Damn betcha!
When I first read this I was going to make a comment similar to Slickwilly but mine would have never matched his. I am glad I did not get around to it before he posted.
What bothers me is that far too many believe that Congressional oversight includes investigating affairs of political opponents when they were not office holders. My understanding of Congressional oversight is that it is limited to activities involving the execution of government. Exactly under what
authority does Schiff or Nadler have investigating any other transactions by any person elected or otherwise. If the SDNY has some reasonable suspicion that a federal crime has taken place then they are the ones to investigate. Without reasonable suspicion there is no reason to investigate anyone.
As for the emoluments clause it has to be obvious that we will need to investigate all legislators whose investment porrfolios include stocks such as Boeing, Lockheed, or any other product subject to legislation or rule making bodies for wrong doing if this is the new standard. The emoluments clause states office holders not simply the President.
Sure, that’s the rule in theory, but in practice prosecutors investigate whoever they want, and issue subpoenas to anyone they want, with or without reasonable suspicion. And people who receive subpoenas issued in the course of these baseless fishing expeditions either comply with the subpoenas or go to jail.
If prosecuters do this in practice rather than following the law then the prosecuter is violating the Constitution.
If we are to accept the maxim “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”, then the republic and the Constitution are mere relics of the past and the totalitarian progressives have won.
Naturally, the news media is playing this up as a “real” criminal investigation and not the continuing drama of the resistance. Huge surprise with that.
Trump can go ahead and ignore the Congressional subpoenas, and he should. But in the end, isn’t that going to be a futile gesture? Aren’t partisan state and federal prosecutors lying in wait all across the country to issue subpoenas for the same information? Trump probably has good legal reasons for refusing to comply with those subpoenas, too, but won’t the prosecutors just shop for partisan judges to hold him in contempt of court? He’s going to have to defy all of those orders, too. Also, when Congress and these rogue prosecutors subpoena the IRS for Trump’s tax returns, don’t you expect that the “resistance” forces in the IRS will rush gleefully to hand them over, in defiance of any orders that Trump might give to the contrary (and likewise with any other government agency that receives a subpoena)? Besides that, even if Trump is able to refuse compliance with the subpoenas against him and to get the agencies to obey his orders, the 80 or 100 other people who will be subpoenaed won’t have the same ability.
Not to mention what we can expect Trump’s enemies say they plan to do to him when he finally leaves office. Then we will be well on our way towards becoming a third-world country where leaders who are foolish enough to hand over power can expect to be prosecuted, exiled, jailed or executed.
If Trump were the sort of authoritarian that the “resistance” insists he is, and he had a compliant and unscrupulous Attorney General (like Robert Kennedy, for example), the Justice Department would be at this very moment working to indict a dozen or so Democratic congressmen as a show of force.
I LIKE that idea! Good one, Greg.
Frankly, it’s a scary and depressing idea, but that’s the road that the Democrats are heading down. If you try to put your enemies in jail, someday they’re going to try to do the same thing to you.
But let’s not forget the role that Trump played in setting us on this path — encouraging the chants of “Lock her up!” at his rallies and his sneer to Hillary in the debates that if he had been in charge, “You’d be in jail.”
I really don’t think that had anything to do about it, and joking about it is a lot different from actively trying to do it. Also Hillary, in fact, DID break the law. With her, it was the task of pretending she didn’t
It is clear that this is what needs to be done.
The precedent was set.
Reminds me of a little ‘nuclear option’ that skewered the Democrats after it was implemented by them.