After Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago had the FBI visit and look for alleged classified documents in his possession, the Left had a field day. Between jokes at the former President’s expense, memes recounting times when Trump made statements that now applied to him, and hoping this would finally be the thing that landed Trump in prison, Leftists were full of more hope than a Barack Obama rally.
There was also a common theme among the talking heads in the media and politics: no one is above the law. Although I’m happy to see Leftists embracing law and order for a change, let’s just say I’m not convinced they’re genuine and/or consistent in that sentiment.
Leftists being hypocrites? Heaven forbid!
Now, what I’m about to go over will likely get dismissed as “whataboutism” and there’s certainly an element of that in play. Having said that, these examples are necessary to lay out the groundwork for my argument.
For as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as I can get, we need to go back to May 2002 when former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger took classified documents out of the National Archive in his pants. (And I wish I were kidding about that last part.) After calling it an “honest mistake,” he eventually plead guilty in 2005. His punishment? Two years of probation, surrendering his law license, a loss of his security clearance for 3 years, and a promise to cooperate with investigators.
No FBI raids on his home. No wall-to-wall media coverage detailing every sorted detail of his crimes on a 25/8 continuous loop (because 24/7 isn’t enough, or because Common Core math took over telling time). Just an acknowledgement of the sentence, a hand-wave of the severity of the crime, and glowing obituaries upon the event of his passing.
Granted, Donald Trump hasn’t gone to the Great Mar-a-Lago in the Sky yet, but there is a decided difference in how the Berger and Trump document situations are being handled. Aside from a handful of balanced analyses from pundits like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, the rule has been to assume Trump is guilty and deserves the treatment he’s gotten. Some even point to the Berger situation as precedent in the court of public opinion as a means to condemn Trump.
But there’s a bit more at play here outside of the “whataboutism.” Leftists believe in their superiority (just ask them), and try to shape the world to affirm it. When someone on the Left violates the law or acts inappropriately, it’s circle the wagons time! Only after it’s a done deal will Leftists acknowledge the actual crime, and usually as a means to dismiss it as old news.
That is if Leftists admit there was wrong-doing in the first place. Anyone remember Lois Lerner? If not, she was one of the people behind the IRS targeting political groups with connections to the TEA Party. After blaming the scandal on “low level employees,” the Department of Justice closed their investigation without Lerner being charged. Oh, sure, the DOJ report references mismanagement at all levels, but they allegedly didn’t find any laws being broken.
Unfortunately for them, there were. Lerner admitted to singling out applications for tax exempt status with the words “TEA Party” or “Patriot,” but argued those actions weren’t politically motivated. Yeah, and I’m the first Lutheran Pope. Where the legal violations come into play is when she turned over tax documents from the aforementioned groups to the DOJ.
Yeah. That’s illegal, not to mention unconstitutional. Remember, kids, Leftists say Roe v. Wade was based on a Constitutional right to privacy (that really isn’t in the Constitution, but play along with me here for a minute). That means the IRS violated the right to privacy of TEA Party groups. Oops.
But did the Leftists cheering the raid on Mar-a-Lago say much of anything about Lerner’s criminal and Constitutional missteps? Nope. They went along with the “low level employees” line, which was bullshit from the word go.
With Berger, Lerner, and any number of other Leftists (I’m looking at you, Eric Swalwell), no crime is too grave to excuse, or in most cases ignore, because they’re on the right side. And by “right side” I mean Left side. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Hunter Biden, and the whole Hee Haw Gang on the Left are a handful of examples of people who get to be above the law by virtue of being Leftists and having media Leftists (a redundancy, I know) cover for them by not covering them committing crimes.
Republicans, conservatives, and anyone else who falls outside the Leftist hivemind don’t get that treatment. If anything, they’re more heavily scrutinized to find every micron of dirt they can find to make the target of scorn look even more like Al Capone, only less honest. Speaking personally, I’m afraid opposition research will find I had an overdue library book in elementary school, which would certainly derail any hopes I had of becoming President. Or even County Supervisor of Creating Busy Work for Government Employees So They Don’t Actually Try to Do Real Work.
Why…it’s almost as if the Left’s version of law and order only goes one way!
Which, of course, to them it does. Since they are superior to us plebs, they write their own rules and excuse their own mistakes. But that’s not really justice; it’s rigging the system to one’s own benefit. Leftists will argue (without irony) this has been going on for quite some time and only through their efforts will everyone get a fair shake in the legal system. Yet, their efforts to give everyone a fair shake only reinforce the existing power structure where some people are treated better than others.
That’s called a self-own, kids.
Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, he was absolutely right about ideology trumping (see what I did there) justice. As more details come about about the Mar-a-Lago raid, I think we’ll see the former President proven right yet again.
And without having to lie to the FISA court, no less!
Tag: justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The eyes of the world were on Minnesota earlier this year, and not because the Twins and the Vikings have been mathematically eliminated from the post-season on the same day. Former police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted on three counts related to the death of George Floyd, and the Left cried tears of joy because justice was served (according to them). Yet, there are some, including your humble correspondent, who don’t quite agree with the sentiment, thanks to people like Maxine Waters voicing opinions prior to the jury being sequestered to deliberate.
We’re going to be dealing with some lofty concepts here, kids, so grab a cold beverage and strap in.
justice
What the Left thinks it means – an outcome that reinforces our collective societal will and punishes those who try to subvert it
What it really means – an outcome where the process and the verdict support a fair result
To make things perfectly clear, I happen to agree with the verdict. What Derek Chauvin did on camera crossed the line between securing a suspect and police brutality. It’s hard to argue that (although I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to try). If the case were tried purely on the evidence, the result would be the same.
Ah, but there’s the rub. This case wasn’t tried purely on the evidence. The Court of Public Opinion, which has a track record that makes the 9th Circuit Court look like Solomon, has been trying and retrying this case pretty much on the daily. Whether it’s elevating George Floyd to heroic/deity levels or using the case as a means to promote everything from defunding/abolishing the police to rooting out white supremacists en masse, the Left has been milking this situation for all it’s worth. Judging from the recent home purchase of a Black Lives Matter founder, it’s worth quite a bit.
Even with the video evidence, there is still an important step to consider: ensuring both sides get a fair hearing. The Court of Public Opinion typically isn’t the venue for such discourse, so it falls to the actual court system. And that’s where the Chauvin verdict goes off the rails like Gary Busey driving an Amtrak route. Thanks to Leftists like Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, and President Joe Biden, the environment surrounding the trial made a fair hearing impossible. There is some question of whether the jury was sequestered to the point they wouldn’t have heard the aforementioned Leftists’ comments, so we can’t be sure one way or the other.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you plant the seeds for an appeal.
Leftists were so hellbent to get a conviction that they didn’t take into consideration what they were doing to deny justice, the very thing they claim they wanted out of the Chauvin trial. Although lack of self-awareness isn’t a bug in the Left so much as a feature, it took an amazing amount of blockheadedness to agree to the idea to let some of the most divisive politicians in modern history and Joe Biden weigh in on what the jury “should” do.
Speaking of which, Speaker Pelosi? Call your office, provided you’ve extracted your feet from your mouth after thanking George Floyd of “taking one for the team.”
Anyway, the Left’s approach to justice, real or whatever make-believe version they want to promote today, is based on their general approach: the ends justify the means. In the Chauvin case, the Left wanted a guilty verdict so they can continue to perpetuate the notion police officers are killing innocent black victims constantly. (Of course, actual data shows that’s not happening, but Party of Science, kids!) As long as this perception is considered to be reality, the Left can keep bringing it up as a means to get money and power without actually doing anything about it.
Think about that last part for a moment. The Left needs these problems to continue for their own purposes. And if it takes people dying to make that happen, so be it! Who would have thought the party that supports abortion on demand would have such disregard for human life?
Meanwhile, the Left keeps slapping “justice” on everything to the point the word loses its meaning. You know, just like they did with racism! Environmental justice, social justice, economic justice, racial justice, about the only thing they haven’t touched on is actual justice, and let’s be glad they haven’t or it would get screwed up worse than it already is. And if the Derek Chauvin verdict is any indication, they may have their sights set on it.
The issues they face, however, are a bit deeper than they are. For all the times they’ve taken up for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal and the number of lawyers in their midst, you’d think they’d have figured out the American criminal justice process. Just because you hold your breath and stomp your feet doesn’t mean you get the verdict you want. There is still a matter of evidence and procedure that have to be followed or else you get a conviction that gets overturned faster than a pancake at IHOP. And that’s by design, my Leftist friends. Actual justice doesn’t begin and end with the judge’s gavel; it begins with following the steps to ensure all parties involved have a chance to be heard and present a case. I know that kinda puts a crimp in your “execute first and ask questions…well, never, really” approach, but it does make things a lot handier when it comes to, you know, actually getting a legal ruling that won’t get overturned due to a lack of procedural integrity?
In other words, if you follow the rules and don’t let Maxine Waters say something incredibly stupid about an ongoing trial, you don’t have to worry about the verdict you want getting thrown out. Granted, that may be a hell of an ask from the Left, but we can hope.
Regardless of how you feel about the Derek Chauvin verdict, it’s hard to say whether justice was actually served. On the one hand, he has been convicted of contributing to George Floyd’s death. On the other, the environment surrounding the trial made the conviction all but certain, but not in a good way. When that happens, it’s a good thing Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold or we’d be due for a series of rampant scale-whippings.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There’s an old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” With a wild Presidential election year and 2020 being, well, 2020, we are indeed living in interesting times. And that has lead to some interesting prospects coming up sooner than we think.
For the past couple of months, the Left has floated the idea of adding more Justices to the Supreme Court, a practice known as “packing the court.” It’s been done, or at least threatened, in the past with varying degrees of success. Now, in the shadow of Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away and Amy Coney Barrett possibly becoming the newest Supreme Court Justice, the Left wants there to be more chairs that need to be filled.
Looks like Norm Abrams might need to start a show called This Old House of Justice. And maybe he could make some new chairs on the Olde Yankee Woodshop.
Meanwhile, let’s unpack this packing the court business, shall we?
packing the court
What the Left thinks it means – adding more Supreme Court Justices to balance the diversity of the High Court and the ideas being discussed
What it really means – adding more Supreme Court Justices so the Left can circumvent making an argument to the American people
Let’s be frank. This whole “packing the court” idea wouldn’t have become an issue if President Donald Trump lost and if the Senate were under Democrat control. With Hillary Clinton as President, the Left could have counted on her to find a nominee who was far enough Left that he/she/zer could make Lyndon LaRoche look like Rush Limbaugh. And with a Democrat-controlled Senate, the advise and consent could be done via TikTok, or possibly through emojis.
Even that might be too complex for some of the Senators, but that’s another story.
Once Trump won, the Left’s plans went up in smoke like Denver, Colorado, on 4/20. Then, when the Democrats failed to win back the Senate with their can’t-miss slogan “Orange Man Bad,” they were left with trying to impeach the President for crimes that weren’t actually crimes, per se, so much as they were the delusional rantings of a group of Leftists whose knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with spelling “Constitution.” When that succeeded and Trump wasn’t removed from office for, well, not doing anything illegal, the Left’s focus became adding seats to the Supreme Court to counteract the President’s agenda.
Before I go further, let me point out the Left aren’t known for good long-term strategy. Their strategy is in-the-moment and assumes the best possible outcome. So, when their ideas crash and burn like the Hindenburg but with more government spending attached to it, they don’t know how to react. To them, their plans were and are perfect and it must be because of dirty tricks by the Republicans that the plans didn’t come to fruition. Case in point: Russiagate. At this point, they would be happy to prosecute a Trump surrogate who likes White Russians or had a salad with Russian dressing once, if only to “prove” Trump got help from Russia to win the Presidency. It couldn’t have been something else, like Hillary Clinton being the worst candidate in recent history (and that includes Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney, kids).
Meanwhile, back in the original point I was making, the Left hasn’t thought out this packing the court idea very well for the reasons I mentioned above. They are assuming Joe “I Lost Twice in Previous Presidential Candidacies and I Still Got the Nomination” Biden will win because…say it with me, friends…”Orange Man Bad.” In order for this plan to work, Democrats need to retake the Senate, and this year is just crazy enough that it could happen. Having said that, it’s not a lock by any stretch of the imagination. Even less than 30 days before the election, something crazy can happen that will upset the checkerboard.
Like, maybe…avoiding answering the question about whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in favor of packing the court.
Oh, and the continuing chaos in Portland and other cities across the country.
Or the poor performances of Biden and Harris in the debates.
Or Hunter Biden being indicted for financial crimes aided by his father.
You know, any of the usual things that can trip up a candidate this close to Election Day.
The point is packing the court relies upon Joe Biden winning and Democrats getting control of the Senate again. If one of those prospects doesn’t pan out, it’s game over. But there’s another aspect the Left hasn’t through about: President Trump might pack the court before Leftists get a chance. You think Amy Coney Barrett is a dangerous candidate? Imagine repeating that process with men and women just like her.
That popping noise you hear right now is the exploding of Leftists’ heads as they realize the President could do just that.
Which will not only make the Left mad, but that much more motivated to win the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024 so they could get more Justices on the Supreme Court…which will motivate the Right to do the same. And before we know it, the Supreme Court will need to meet at FedEx Field. On the plus side, the Washington Football Team (or as I call them, the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins) aren’t using it for much right now, so I’m sure sharing won’t be an issue.
The bigger issue, however, is it creates a situation where the legal system gets bogged down to the point of working even more slowly than it does now. The more Justices you add, the more people have to touch the case and the slower the resolution will be, unless the Supreme Court wants to do a superficial job which increases the chance of poor rulings from the bench. I’m talking Plessy v. Ferguson level bad here. Plus, with civil and human rights cases, a speedy and fair resolution are essential because of the impact such cases have on society and the legal system immediately and years down the road. The Left likes to say “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And now they want to make justice even slower because of a President they didn’t think could win and a Senate they thought they couldn’t lose. What happens when the wheels of justice don’t move?
That silence you hear is the Left not being able to come up with an answer consistent with their idea to pack the court.
Regardless, packing the court is going to be more of a problem than it’s worth (which is zilch). The fact it hasn’t been thought out enough yet to be persuasive to anyone outside of the Leftist hivemind should be enough of a red flag to keep yourselves far away from adopting the idea. But if not, think about the lines at your local government institution, whether it be the post office, the DMV, or a county-level office. In some cases, things run smoothly, while in others, they run at the speed of inert.
Guess which option packing the court will achieve.