Anyone who saw Donald Trump’s boast of his celebrity-bestowed ability to indiscriminately grab women by the genitals as a new political low was proved wrong by Sunday’s debate.Okay, then. Explain this picture:
That’s when the Republican nominee hit a frightening nadir in American politics by saying on live television that if he became president, his opponent, Hillary Clinton “would be in jail.” There is, and can be, no normalizing of such statements. This country doesn’t make political prisoners of rivals. Part of democracy’s hope and promise, and what has always set the U.S. apart from so many other countries, is the peaceful transition of power every four years. Opponents here are defeated, not imprisoned.
 |
| The master of the felonious veto |
 |
| Drink for me, drink for my health, you know I can't drink any more |
By the way, Lehmberg is still in office.
Perry is hardly the only public official who has been through the wringer. I've written more than once about the abuse heaped upon Scott Walker and his colleagues in Wisconsin. Writing for the Federalist, Bre Payton provides a handy compilation of selective outrage. A particular favorite:
‘I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,’ Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. ‘I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol … If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.’ …All sixteen of the examples in Payton's excellent piece share one thing in common -- all of the purported perpretrators are people who were somehow hostile to the Left. It's possible that the Star Tribune has editorialized against the the outrages against Perry and Walker, but I don't recall seeing it.
Asked on what grounds she could have arrested Rove, Pelosi replied, ‘Oh, any number. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress. But we didn’t.’
Hillary Clinton has done some awful things in her life. She may not get called to account for them. But to pretend that Trump's musing is something new and awful? Give me a break.
7 comments:
I can see the objection to promising to put someone in jail, but I think it's entirely appropriate to point out that if elected, one will encourage prosecutors to address obvious perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators, destruction of government records, and failure to secure confidential information--and to find out who else might have been involved, and prosecute them, too.
i'm still looking forward to a newly weaponized IRS, DOJ and Homeland Security in the hands of Trump... but given the recent polls, i havent bought my popcorn yet.
As the saying goes, "If they didn't have double-standards they wouldn't have standards at all."
Gino, I'd be looking forward to that except for one thing; the Democrats do a whole lot better with that kind of tool, being relatively unburdened by questions of conscience.
Really, any government power has to be viewed in light of "What would the guy who you hate, or who hates your guts, do with this power?".
As if trump is burdened with conscience?
I don't know that Drumpf is burdened much by conscience. That said, he is burdened by the fact that most of the Senate hates his guts and would seize on an impeachment to kick his tuckus out of office.
As we know from 1998, that's not a burden that Hilliary shares. Most any Democrat can count on the proverbial 34 Senators in their corner no matter what. Again, you've got to view any power, or political habit, in light of what some of the nastiest people would do with it. For us, that's what Obama or Clinton would do, and it's flat out scary.
Another interesting point of reference; Ms. Lehmberg (aka "drunky") is the same person who failed to get Fran & Dan Keller exonerated vis-à-vis the Oak Hill case when it became clear that there was no evidence a crime had been committed--saying that she needed DNA evidence of actions that didn't happen to exonerate, and she was the head of the child crimes unit when the Kellers were originally tried. Stinks to high heaven.
Looks like there are a number of people who really shouldn't have the title "prosecutor", or for that matter, "lawyer".
Post a Comment