- Feb 16, 2016
- Reaction score
What If the Law Treated All Politicians the Same?
We need one clear and consistent standard, applied to leaders of both parties.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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?