Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I haven't defined the "rule of law," but I did start this recent exchange by quoting at length from TPM about Trump's threat to it. Instead of responding to what I said, you are pretending that my concern about the rule of law is a fig leaf for unhappiness that Mueller did not indict Trump, or something else I haven't said. I am not the people you saw on MSNBC or CNN, and I do not necessarily share their views.
|
I am responding to the words you wrote. You started that exchange by stating that Trump was a danger to the "rule of law." I disagreed. You are correct that you then did not define "rule of law." And consequently, I don't know what your definition would be, which is why I stated that I was responding to what it "seemed" to be.
Because it seems that you are exercised about Trump subverting this "rule of law," while in the past, where others have been accused of subverting the rule of law by their political enemies, you have not been so exercised. In fact, in certain instance, such as Hillary's email mess, you have defended the accused. (It's not a defense to assert that Hillary was cleared, btw, any more than it is a defense that Trump was cleared. [Unless, bizarrely, you assert that being given a pass by Comey is valid while being given one by Barr and Rosenstein is not, which would be you submitting that you are in a position to judge the appropriateness and inappropriateness of such decisions.])*
When Bush was in office, you cited Krugman regularly for the proposition that Bush Admin was engaged in various criminal acts. (Yes, you did.)
Also, you have been very vocal about your disgust at how Barr gamed the release. This betrays bias. I think that bias has two prongs:
1. You view Trump as unfit and a threat;
2. You have a static view of the rule of law, believing that power and politics does not and should not influence how that rule works as much as they do.
I agree with you that Trump is unfit. But I do not see him as some enoromous threat. And I do not see the rule of law as some set of fixed rules or notions which Trump is subverting. I see a battle for power being played out using the law as an instrument, which is how political battles are often fought these days. Those aligned against Trump are using the law to attack him, and he's testing its limitations in response.
__________
* For the record, and to avoid some tedious reply from Adder, I did not support the investigation into the Clintons because it was political, and I'm glad she got a pass. Do I think she engaged in possibly unethical and illegal shit? Yes. But as I've said elsewhere, so do all politicians unwittingly and by necessity, and I doubt anything she did - including improperly directing or pressuring staff or counsel to erase emails, if she did that - is something for which she should be prosecuted under the circumstances. She was being subjected to a partisan witch hunt. She is allowed leeway in such an unfair investigation.
Threaded Mode