Remember when Leftists got their hate boners for Donald Trump after 2021 which resulted in legal proceedings that would make even Matlock say “fuck it”? Well, now that Trump’s President again, Leftists aren’t so keen on their tactics coming back on them.
This week (check local listings for the week in your area), California Governor and 80s movie villain stand-in Gavin Newsom and his wife got the business end of a Department of Justice investigation into “tax-related conduct.” Of course, Leftists including Newsom himself have complained about the weaponization of government agencies against them. And the Right has complained about the same thing under President Brick Tamland’s inept leadership.
So, let’s talk about it!
weaponization
What the Left thinks it means – using the power of the government to punish and oppress people
What it really means – a course of action that won’t end well
Over the past 20-30 years, politics has become one big pissing contest between Democrats and Republicans. Whenever one party does something the other doesn’t like, the other party takes time to do something to the first party doesn’t like in retaliation.
Actually, let me take that back. It’s not a pissing contest; it’s an acrimonious divorce.
Regardless, the Left took it to a new level after the 2020 election. No longer content to just launch investigations into Donald Trump’s dealings and what he did during his first Administration. They made it a point to use the legal system against him. In the short run, they were successful in getting the former (and current) President convicted on 34 felony counts on a case flimsier than a cheap toilet paper nightie. Then, there was the Georgia election interference case where the prosecution was more like a soap opera than a serious legal team.
And then in 2024, all that lawfare went to shit because Trump got reelected.
Now, I’m not a psychologist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but I’d have to say being targeted by the legal system with the Left cheering each and every decision might give Trump a chip on his shoulder the size of the Rock of Gibraltar. And with him not exactly being the “forgive and forget” type, you would have to be a fucking moron to think he wouldn’t try to get one back on the Left.
And as it turns out, the Left are fucking morons.
Back when the Left started weaponizing the judical system against Trump and his followers, I told some Left-leaning friends of mine it was a bad idea because it would come back to haunt them. And, surprise surprise, they could star in a remake of “Poltergeist” because it did. Instead of saying “we fucked up” though, they’re stuck whining about weaponizing the federal government against them.
To be fair, they may have a point, and this time it’s not on their heads. It’s never a good idea for the federal government to go after political enemies under any circumstances. The fact Lois Lerner was allowed to do that and still walks free sticks in my craw like you wouldn’t believe. Or maybe you would. I don’t want to speak out of turn.
Where the Left’s point gets blunted is when the investigations are related to actual wrong-doing, not just having the word “patriot” on your non-profit application. In this case, Newsom and his wife may be guilty of breaking tax law in relation to non-profits they’ve supported.
Of course Newsom is telling people it’s because Trump is trying to scare him away from running for President. But if I may give you some advice, Gav (I’ll call you “Gav” because it’s the tamest thing I could call you), it’s probably the fucking taxes.
But that doesn’t play well in San Francisco, so Newsom and the Left will play it off as weaponization. After all, it will continue the “Trump is out to get us” narrative, which will allow them to play victim (even if they’re nowhere near the epicenter of the shit show). After all, if he can do it to Newsom, he can do it to anybody, right?
Yes, yes he can. And so can you.
That’s why I have the same amount of sympathy towards the Left on his matter than I have fucks to give: zero. You Leftists got a short term victory that wound up meaning less than the box office gross of “Medea Goes to the Gynecologist.” Trump won, mainly because your choices were a doddering old man who more forgetful than I am after a bender with Willie Nelson and a woman who was more one-dimensional and vapid as most Hollywood starlets.
Put another way, you fucked yourselves because you thought there was no way for Trump to get back into office. How’s that working out for you, assholes?
Now, having said all that, I do have to warn both major parties this kind of back and forth shit doesn’t end well for anyone, and it has to stop before this war of words turns into a war with weapons. Folks, things are getting chippy out there between people who want to start shit and people who are waiting for shit to go down so they can fuck up their enemies, real or otherwise. I’ve felt America has been on the verge of another civil war (since the last one worked out so well) for quite a few years now. And right now, it looks like it’s going to be the DIY guerrilla forces on the Left versus the folks with most of the guns on the Right.
Let’s just say I’m taking the under for the Left to win that one.
In the meantime, I think both sides need to take a step back and realize what they’ve done is undercut the very principles of America. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people. Turning the might of the federal government against the people without just cause only makes it harder for the country to operate because you assholes will just keep investigating each other.
Come to think of it, that may not be such a bad idea after all. Carry on!
Tag: department of justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.
Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.
In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?
Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.
rule of law
What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law
What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t
For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.
What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.
And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.
You can stop giggling now.
With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.
Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?
I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!
The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.
But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.
The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.
Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.
Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.
Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!
What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.
The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.
The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.
The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!
Thanks, Harry Reid!