What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
11,164
Reaction score
18,756
Points
2,430

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

16 Aug 2022 ~~ By Jim Gerahty

On the menu today: I picked a quiet week to be away, huh? The FBI executed a search warrant on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, a stabbing attack by an Islamist extremist seriously injured Salman Rushdie, Joe Biden absurdly claimed that inflation had reached zero percent overnight, and New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson is having knee surgery. Apparently, Greg and I can never go on vacation during the same week again.
Whom Is the Law For?
The grassroots of both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the opposition party’s leaders get away with murder and that their own leaders get the book thrown at them just for jaywalking.

For the past six years or so, many Democrats scoffed, “But her emails!” — implicitly arguing that whatever Hillary Clinton did regarding her emails, including classified information, back when she was Secretary of State, was unimportant in the context of the 2016 presidential election. And make no mistake, the FBI determined that emails on Clinton’s private server contained classified information. In his infamous July 5, 2016, statement, then-FBI director James Comey revealed that, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
~Snip~
Six years ago, despite the considerable evidence that the then-Democratic nominee for president had violated the law, Comey concluded it was not worth it for the FBI to recommend criminal charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
~Snip~
After all, Comey and the FBI didn’t see any need for criminal charges against Hillary in similar circumstances. In fact, Comey’s contention that, “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” indicates that pressing charges for this sort of thing is wildly unreasonable, or even absurd. In Comey’s account, it wasn’t even a close call.
And the contrast with Hillary Clinton is not the only case where Trump supporters can point to federal law enforcement effectively ignoring what appears to be a slam-dunk case of criminal behavior by a high-profile Democratic figure. Hunter Biden more or less confessed to lying on his paperwork to purchase a firearm in 2018, declaring that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” While promoting his memoir in spring 2021, the younger Biden said that at the time he’d purchased the gun, he was an addict who smoked crack “literally every 15 minutes.”
~Snip~
If an official breaks the law, then prosecute them — even if they’re the all-but-certain Democratic nominee a few weeks away from the convention, or a former president that is a stone-cold lock to run for another term. But don’t contend that lawbreaking is okay if it is done by political leaders you prefer, or that your party is entitled to at least one free crime because the other party has gotten away with some. We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.


Commentary:
When law is selectively enforced by those in power elected to uphold it, it is no longer a law but a political weapon of the ruling party. It literally no longer functions as a law, but is cloaked as a law in name only.
Is it just the imagination of the majority of Americans that Maoist Democrats have made a mockery of the law?
If a law is worth having on the books, it is worth enforcing; if it is not worth enforcing, it is not worth having on the books and should otherwise be revised or rescinded.
I would imagine so many laws should be removed from the books. I would bet you can even find laws where acting to comply with one law in fact leads to violating another.
If both Hillary and The Donald are US Citizens subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why are the applications and enforcement of law different?
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
31,429
Reaction score
4,262
Points
1,240

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

16 Aug 2022 ~~ By Jim Gerahty

On the menu today: I picked a quiet week to be away, huh? The FBI executed a search warrant on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, a stabbing attack by an Islamist extremist seriously injured Salman Rushdie, Joe Biden absurdly claimed that inflation had reached zero percent overnight, and New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson is having knee surgery. Apparently, Greg and I can never go on vacation during the same week again.
Whom Is the Law For?
The grassroots of both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the opposition party’s leaders get away with murder and that their own leaders get the book thrown at them just for jaywalking.

For the past six years or so, many Democrats scoffed, “But her emails!” — implicitly arguing that whatever Hillary Clinton did regarding her emails, including classified information, back when she was Secretary of State, was unimportant in the context of the 2016 presidential election. And make no mistake, the FBI determined that emails on Clinton’s private server contained classified information. In his infamous July 5, 2016, statement, then-FBI director James Comey revealed that, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
~Snip~
Six years ago, despite the considerable evidence that the then-Democratic nominee for president had violated the law, Comey concluded it was not worth it for the FBI to recommend criminal charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
~Snip~
After all, Comey and the FBI didn’t see any need for criminal charges against Hillary in similar circumstances. In fact, Comey’s contention that, “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” indicates that pressing charges for this sort of thing is wildly unreasonable, or even absurd. In Comey’s account, it wasn’t even a close call.
And the contrast with Hillary Clinton is not the only case where Trump supporters can point to federal law enforcement effectively ignoring what appears to be a slam-dunk case of criminal behavior by a high-profile Democratic figure. Hunter Biden more or less confessed to lying on his paperwork to purchase a firearm in 2018, declaring that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” While promoting his memoir in spring 2021, the younger Biden said that at the time he’d purchased the gun, he was an addict who smoked crack “literally every 15 minutes.”
~Snip~
If an official breaks the law, then prosecute them — even if they’re the all-but-certain Democratic nominee a few weeks away from the convention, or a former president that is a stone-cold lock to run for another term. But don’t contend that lawbreaking is okay if it is done by political leaders you prefer, or that your party is entitled to at least one free crime because the other party has gotten away with some. We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.


Commentary:
When law is selectively enforced by those in power elected to uphold it, it is no longer a law but a political weapon of the ruling party. It literally no longer functions as a law, but is cloaked as a law in name only.
Is it just the imagination of the majority of Americans that Maoist Democrats have made a mockery of the law?
If a law is worth having on the books, it is worth enforcing; if it is not worth enforcing, it is not worth having on the books and should otherwise be revised or rescinded.
I would imagine so many laws should be removed from the books. I would bet you can even find laws where acting to comply with one law in fact leads to violating another.
If both Hillary and The Donald are US Citizens subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why are the applications and enforcement of law different?
[What she did was important but did not get to the level of being a crime]

James Comey said “one of the mistakes I made” in connection to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server was his choice of words.

“I should've worked harder to find a way to convey that it's more than just the ordinary mistake, but it's not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that,” Comey said.

The former FBI director rehashed the syntax situation during his exclusive interview with ABC News’ chief anchor George Stephanopoulos ahead of the April 17 release of his book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

Comey said people may occasionally “mishandle” a classified document, but he described the former secretary of state’s use of emails as “really sloppy.”

“This was over the course of four years, dozens of conversations on email about secret topics,” Comey said of Clinton’s handling of emails. “And I think eight about top secret topics…. So if I'm gonna be honest, I have to say somehow it's more than ordinary sloppiness.”

In the statement he delivered on July 5, 2016, he described her email practices as “extremely careless.” He initially considered using “gross negligence,” but told Stephanopoulos that was a “lawyer term.”

“My staff convinced me that that's just gonna confuse all kinds of people, if you start talking about statutes and what the words mean,” he said. “What's a colloquial way to explain it? And elsewhere in my statement I had said ‘extremely careless.’ And so they said, ‘Just use that.’ And so that's what I went with.”

He said that he would not use the words “extreme carelessness” if he were to do it again.

“I don't know what it would be, sitting here. [I'd] find some other way to convey, 'cause I wanted to be honest and transparent. This wasn't your ordinary bureaucrat who just mishandles one document. This was something more than that. But not something that anybody would prosecute,” Comey said.


 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
74,333
Reaction score
33,560
Points
2,290

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

16 Aug 2022 ~~ By Jim Gerahty

On the menu today: I picked a quiet week to be away, huh? The FBI executed a search warrant on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, a stabbing attack by an Islamist extremist seriously injured Salman Rushdie, Joe Biden absurdly claimed that inflation had reached zero percent overnight, and New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson is having knee surgery. Apparently, Greg and I can never go on vacation during the same week again.
Whom Is the Law For?
The grassroots of both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the opposition party’s leaders get away with murder and that their own leaders get the book thrown at them just for jaywalking.

For the past six years or so, many Democrats scoffed, “But her emails!” — implicitly arguing that whatever Hillary Clinton did regarding her emails, including classified information, back when she was Secretary of State, was unimportant in the context of the 2016 presidential election. And make no mistake, the FBI determined that emails on Clinton’s private server contained classified information. In his infamous July 5, 2016, statement, then-FBI director James Comey revealed that, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
~Snip~
Six years ago, despite the considerable evidence that the then-Democratic nominee for president had violated the law, Comey concluded it was not worth it for the FBI to recommend criminal charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
~Snip~
After all, Comey and the FBI didn’t see any need for criminal charges against Hillary in similar circumstances. In fact, Comey’s contention that, “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” indicates that pressing charges for this sort of thing is wildly unreasonable, or even absurd. In Comey’s account, it wasn’t even a close call.
And the contrast with Hillary Clinton is not the only case where Trump supporters can point to federal law enforcement effectively ignoring what appears to be a slam-dunk case of criminal behavior by a high-profile Democratic figure. Hunter Biden more or less confessed to lying on his paperwork to purchase a firearm in 2018, declaring that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” While promoting his memoir in spring 2021, the younger Biden said that at the time he’d purchased the gun, he was an addict who smoked crack “literally every 15 minutes.”
~Snip~
If an official breaks the law, then prosecute them — even if they’re the all-but-certain Democratic nominee a few weeks away from the convention, or a former president that is a stone-cold lock to run for another term. But don’t contend that lawbreaking is okay if it is done by political leaders you prefer, or that your party is entitled to at least one free crime because the other party has gotten away with some. We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.


Commentary:
When law is selectively enforced by those in power elected to uphold it, it is no longer a law but a political weapon of the ruling party. It literally no longer functions as a law, but is cloaked as a law in name only.
Is it just the imagination of the majority of Americans that Maoist Democrats have made a mockery of the law?
If a law is worth having on the books, it is worth enforcing; if it is not worth enforcing, it is not worth having on the books and should otherwise be revised or rescinded.
I would imagine so many laws should be removed from the books. I would bet you can even find laws where acting to comply with one law in fact leads to violating another.
If both Hillary and The Donald are US Citizens subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why are the applications and enforcement of law different?

prisons would be over flowing
 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
11,427
Reaction score
12,853
Points
2,445
Location
The Full Moon

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

16 Aug 2022 ~~ By Jim Gerahty

On the menu today: I picked a quiet week to be away, huh? The FBI executed a search warrant on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, a stabbing attack by an Islamist extremist seriously injured Salman Rushdie, Joe Biden absurdly claimed that inflation had reached zero percent overnight, and New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson is having knee surgery. Apparently, Greg and I can never go on vacation during the same week again.
Whom Is the Law For?
The grassroots of both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the opposition party’s leaders get away with murder and that their own leaders get the book thrown at them just for jaywalking.

For the past six years or so, many Democrats scoffed, “But her emails!” — implicitly arguing that whatever Hillary Clinton did regarding her emails, including classified information, back when she was Secretary of State, was unimportant in the context of the 2016 presidential election. And make no mistake, the FBI determined that emails on Clinton’s private server contained classified information. In his infamous July 5, 2016, statement, then-FBI director James Comey revealed that, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
~Snip~
Six years ago, despite the considerable evidence that the then-Democratic nominee for president had violated the law, Comey concluded it was not worth it for the FBI to recommend criminal charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
~Snip~
After all, Comey and the FBI didn’t see any need for criminal charges against Hillary in similar circumstances. In fact, Comey’s contention that, “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” indicates that pressing charges for this sort of thing is wildly unreasonable, or even absurd. In Comey’s account, it wasn’t even a close call.
And the contrast with Hillary Clinton is not the only case where Trump supporters can point to federal law enforcement effectively ignoring what appears to be a slam-dunk case of criminal behavior by a high-profile Democratic figure. Hunter Biden more or less confessed to lying on his paperwork to purchase a firearm in 2018, declaring that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” While promoting his memoir in spring 2021, the younger Biden said that at the time he’d purchased the gun, he was an addict who smoked crack “literally every 15 minutes.”
~Snip~
If an official breaks the law, then prosecute them — even if they’re the all-but-certain Democratic nominee a few weeks away from the convention, or a former president that is a stone-cold lock to run for another term. But don’t contend that lawbreaking is okay if it is done by political leaders you prefer, or that your party is entitled to at least one free crime because the other party has gotten away with some. We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.


Commentary:
When law is selectively enforced by those in power elected to uphold it, it is no longer a law but a political weapon of the ruling party. It literally no longer functions as a law, but is cloaked as a law in name only.
Is it just the imagination of the majority of Americans that Maoist Democrats have made a mockery of the law?
If a law is worth having on the books, it is worth enforcing; if it is not worth enforcing, it is not worth having on the books and should otherwise be revised or rescinded.
I would imagine so many laws should be removed from the books. I would bet you can even find laws where acting to comply with one law in fact leads to violating another.
If both Hillary and The Donald are US Citizens subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why are the applications and enforcement of law different?

The system itself is the problem. Our American system of everything has been infiltrated by anti-American cabalists who over the course of many years reengineered the very machinery of our system to destroy us. Included in this long ongoing war against the American people is the "election" and appointment of a majority of politicians who worship only GOLD. Our modern breed of American politicians are whores turning tricks for an endless multitude of high paying Johns, both foreign and domestic. Even before their terms in office begin our modern politicians are bought and paid for. The only recourse for such political hedonism is for the people who are government to perpetually sustain bad government in order to infinitely enrich themselves. The plight of We the People never even enters the mind of the modern American politician. Their number one objective is forced governance at any cost. This is why we suffer from increasingly militarized law enforcement agencies at every level; our government has become a government existing only to serve and protect itself and its sacred accumulation of GOLD. Elections mean nothing. Protests mean nothing. Letters written to politicians mean nothing. Our modern government has monopolized force and violence against us for the sole purpose of always getting exactly what it wants, which is to enrich itself and grow. We the People do not, I repeat, do not figure into that equation.
 

Calypso Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
11,025
Reaction score
13,061
Points
2,288
There'd be a resurgence of the act of tar and feathering. Actually that might be more fun than just putting them in prison. They'd remember it far longer and it would be a greater deterrent to future political campaigning. Bet we'd get far better quality candidates.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
40,282
Reaction score
22,534
Points
2,615

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

16 Aug 2022 ~~ By Jim Gerahty

On the menu today: I picked a quiet week to be away, huh? The FBI executed a search warrant on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, a stabbing attack by an Islamist extremist seriously injured Salman Rushdie, Joe Biden absurdly claimed that inflation had reached zero percent overnight, and New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson is having knee surgery. Apparently, Greg and I can never go on vacation during the same week again.
Whom Is the Law For?
The grassroots of both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the opposition party’s leaders get away with murder and that their own leaders get the book thrown at them just for jaywalking.

For the past six years or so, many Democrats scoffed, “But her emails!” — implicitly arguing that whatever Hillary Clinton did regarding her emails, including classified information, back when she was Secretary of State, was unimportant in the context of the 2016 presidential election. And make no mistake, the FBI determined that emails on Clinton’s private server contained classified information. In his infamous July 5, 2016, statement, then-FBI director James Comey revealed that, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
~Snip~
Six years ago, despite the considerable evidence that the then-Democratic nominee for president had violated the law, Comey concluded it was not worth it for the FBI to recommend criminal charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
~Snip~
After all, Comey and the FBI didn’t see any need for criminal charges against Hillary in similar circumstances. In fact, Comey’s contention that, “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” indicates that pressing charges for this sort of thing is wildly unreasonable, or even absurd. In Comey’s account, it wasn’t even a close call.
And the contrast with Hillary Clinton is not the only case where Trump supporters can point to federal law enforcement effectively ignoring what appears to be a slam-dunk case of criminal behavior by a high-profile Democratic figure. Hunter Biden more or less confessed to lying on his paperwork to purchase a firearm in 2018, declaring that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” While promoting his memoir in spring 2021, the younger Biden said that at the time he’d purchased the gun, he was an addict who smoked crack “literally every 15 minutes.”
~Snip~
If an official breaks the law, then prosecute them — even if they’re the all-but-certain Democratic nominee a few weeks away from the convention, or a former president that is a stone-cold lock to run for another term. But don’t contend that lawbreaking is okay if it is done by political leaders you prefer, or that your party is entitled to at least one free crime because the other party has gotten away with some. We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.


Commentary:
When law is selectively enforced by those in power elected to uphold it, it is no longer a law but a political weapon of the ruling party. It literally no longer functions as a law, but is cloaked as a law in name only.
Is it just the imagination of the majority of Americans that Maoist Democrats have made a mockery of the law?
If a law is worth having on the books, it is worth enforcing; if it is not worth enforcing, it is not worth having on the books and should otherwise be revised or rescinded.
I would imagine so many laws should be removed from the books. I would bet you can even find laws where acting to comply with one law in fact leads to violating another.
If both Hillary and The Donald are US Citizens subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why are the applications and enforcement of law different?
the law does treat everyone not just politicians equally,,
its the people applying the law that dont,,
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
26,874
Reaction score
26,042
Points
2,415
The Democrats want a "country of men", not a "country of laws".
They are totally corrupt and dishonest.
It is amazing that the Left calls themselves "Progressive" when it is obvious that they are regressive in every way.
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
27,999
Reaction score
10,096
Points
910
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Then so many more Republicans would be in prison.

This really isn't debatable. The FBI has always sucked conservative ass and hated liberals. Since its founding, it's often concentrated on faking ways to send liberals to prison. That's why the FBI pushed the story of new charges against Clinton, while simultaneously hiding the fact that Trump was under investigation. The FBI deliberately threw the 2016 election to Trump. A group can't get more partisan than that.

And that's changing. The FBI is getting more even-handed. Years of being backstabbed by violent conservatraitors tends to have such an effect on effect the staunchest Republican ally. That's why Trump's traitor-bitch brigades here are melting down. If the law is no longer protecting Republicans, then many, many Republicans will be going to prison.

Don't worry too much, Trump-traitors. Bubba and pals have a big welcome ready for their new roommates. Emphasis on "mates".
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
5,623
Points
1,938
Then so many more Republicans would be in prison.

This really isn't debatable. The FBI has always sucked conservative ass and hated liberals. Since its founding, it's often concentrated on faking ways to send liberals to prison. That's why the FBI pushed the story of new charges against Clinton, while simultaneously hiding the fact that Trump was under investigation. The FBI deliberately threw the 2016 election to Trump. A group can't get more partisan than that.

And that's changing. The FBI is getting more even-handed. Years of being backstabbed by violent conservatraitors tends to have such an effect on effect the staunchest Republican ally. That's why Trump's traitor-bitch brigades here are melting down. If the law is no longer protecting Republicans, then many, many Republicans will be going to prison.

Don't worry too much, Trump-traitors. Bubba and pals have a big welcome ready for their new roommates. Emphasis on "mates".
Can moderators change this postres username to idiot . I mean come on , really! Not a truth does he ever say.
 

Augustine_

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
3,129
Points
940
Location
Nunya

What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?

16 Aug 2022 ~~ By Jim Gerahty

On the menu today: I picked a quiet week to be away, huh? The FBI executed a search warrant on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, a stabbing attack by an Islamist extremist seriously injured Salman Rushdie, Joe Biden absurdly claimed that inflation had reached zero percent overnight, and New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson is having knee surgery. Apparently, Greg and I can never go on vacation during the same week again.
Whom Is the Law For?
The grassroots of both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the opposition party’s leaders get away with murder and that their own leaders get the book thrown at them just for jaywalking.

For the past six years or so, many Democrats scoffed, “But her emails!” — implicitly arguing that whatever Hillary Clinton did regarding her emails, including classified information, back when she was Secretary of State, was unimportant in the context of the 2016 presidential election. And make no mistake, the FBI determined that emails on Clinton’s private server contained classified information. In his infamous July 5, 2016, statement, then-FBI director James Comey revealed that, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”
~Snip~
Six years ago, despite the considerable evidence that the then-Democratic nominee for president had violated the law, Comey concluded it was not worth it for the FBI to recommend criminal charges to the U.S. Department of Justice.
~Snip~
After all, Comey and the FBI didn’t see any need for criminal charges against Hillary in similar circumstances. In fact, Comey’s contention that, “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” indicates that pressing charges for this sort of thing is wildly unreasonable, or even absurd. In Comey’s account, it wasn’t even a close call.
And the contrast with Hillary Clinton is not the only case where Trump supporters can point to federal law enforcement effectively ignoring what appears to be a slam-dunk case of criminal behavior by a high-profile Democratic figure. Hunter Biden more or less confessed to lying on his paperwork to purchase a firearm in 2018, declaring that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” While promoting his memoir in spring 2021, the younger Biden said that at the time he’d purchased the gun, he was an addict who smoked crack “literally every 15 minutes.”
~Snip~
If an official breaks the law, then prosecute them — even if they’re the all-but-certain Democratic nominee a few weeks away from the convention, or a former president that is a stone-cold lock to run for another term. But don’t contend that lawbreaking is okay if it is done by political leaders you prefer, or that your party is entitled to at least one free crime because the other party has gotten away with some. We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.


Commentary:
When law is selectively enforced by those in power elected to uphold it, it is no longer a law but a political weapon of the ruling party. It literally no longer functions as a law, but is cloaked as a law in name only.
Is it just the imagination of the majority of Americans that Maoist Democrats have made a mockery of the law?
If a law is worth having on the books, it is worth enforcing; if it is not worth enforcing, it is not worth having on the books and should otherwise be revised or rescinded.
I would imagine so many laws should be removed from the books. I would bet you can even find laws where acting to comply with one law in fact leads to violating another.
If both Hillary and The Donald are US Citizens subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why are the applications and enforcement of law different?
Now explain why Trump's family being gifted billions by Saudi Arabia on top of all the other ways they profited from his political career is different from anything done by the Biden family. Go after both, or admit you don't care.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
40,282
Reaction score
22,534
Points
2,615
Now explain why Trump's family being gifted billions by Saudi Arabia on top of all the other ways they profited from his political career is different from anything done by the Biden family. Go after both, or admit you don't care.
got a link for those billions trump was gifted??
 

Augustine_

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
3,129
Points
940
Location
Nunya

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
40,282
Reaction score
22,534
Points
2,615
I do but you but I'll bet anything you're not going to give a shit

so you lied and trump didnt get a gift of billions of dollars,,,

you know what they say,, if a leftist didnt lie he would never speak,,
 

Augustine_

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
3,129
Points
940
Location
Nunya
so you lied and trump didnt get a gift of billions of dollars,,,

you know what they say,, if a leftist didnt lie he would never speak,,
^ Proving me right yet again
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$55.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top