We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day And as I said above, if he can send the Clintons to jail that will be extremely beneficial for the country. Not out of any malice to the Clintons (well deserved though it might be) but simply as a marker to say “corruption in politics has at least an outside chance of ending you in the big house.” I think that would send shivers through the political establishment and make them a little less careless and a little less greedy as they milk the public for their own self enrichment.
But I could be entirely wrong. And he might also fire a nuclear weapon at Paris if a Hollande statement is carelessly translated to suggest his penis is of inadequate length. It is a dice roll.
– Samizdata commenter Fraser Orr
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Trump is, of course, a risk and only the foolish will have put their cross against his name without at least some pause for thought. But his victory is living, breathing proof that the Demos still matters.
https://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/demos/
Sadly, that would be a terrible mistake. Once powerful people get the idea losing a political battle means jail or execution they’ll do anything to stay in power. It’s begging for a coup.
If I had my way exiting politics for good would get you a blanket pardon.
I would recommend that Trump fully pardon Hillary for all of the e-mail mess.
The Foundation stuff isn’t going to come off so much as pure political spite as a prosecution for the e-mails would, so he should let that run its course.
@Eric, the real benefit is down the tree. The Clintons were uniquely corrupt. I am not a fan of Obama, but I don’t think he was enriching himself from his office, except in legitimate ways (like writing books). Same with Bush and Reagan, Carter and Nixon. The point of the prosecution is that if the King and Queen corruption can be taken down, then all the guys lower on the totem pole doing their corrupt little things must wonder “if the Clintons can’t get away with it, how can I?” That road commissioner tempted by the kickback might just take pause and wonder if he looked good in orange.
Furthermore it really is a continuation of the “movement” around Trump, the destruction of elitism, the idea that the rules should apply fairly to everyone. Really, the needs of justice demand that they get taken down. It is a patriotic issue about who we are as a nation. Justice blind to station. All men create equal and all that.
There is an argument that it might be politically expedient to let her slide (though I don’t actually think it holds much water), but that just makes you like all the other pigs with their trotters in the food trough.
Because it is politically hot they should absolutely investigate and make very public some of the dreadful things the Clintons have done (here I am thinking more of the foundation stealing money from nuns and orphans thing) to make it clear that justice is being done, not political payback.
Look, to give just one example, it is well documented that the state of Qatar gave Bill Clinton a one million dollar check “for his birthday” while she was Secretary of State. Not only was the gift criminal, it was compounded by the cover up of not declaring it. That is public corruption and twenty years in the big house for just one of thousands of such violation.
A compromise could be to pardon the Clintons and throw into jail some of their henchmen, so that, in the future, crime families will find it hard to get henchmen to follow their orders.
But i’d prefer seeing the Clintons in jail.
A compromise could be to pardon the Clintons and throw into jail some of their henchmen
It’s hard to see this going down well the average Trump voter. One rule for us, another rule for them, is a pretty good summary of what they’re voting against.
Besides which, the Dems have never had any problems with pursuing their political enemies with criminal indictments even when there’s no crime at all. Unilateral disarmament when there are actual crimes to investigate seems not merely morally wrong but imprudent.
I fully expect a Pardon from Obama, but it will be interesting to see if he can cover all of the various possibilities …
Trump as President won’t be sending anyone to jail, thank goodness. However, the Clintons really did run their “Foundation” as a slush fund, and it should be investigated in a proper manner, they should be given a fair trial, and then their corrupt arses should be thrown in the Big House for the next 20 years.
Job done.
Fraser Orr,
I understand the theory. But I can point to several cases in history (the most famous being Rome around the time of the first triumvirate) where powerful politicians literally destroyed the republic as a byproduct of their efforts to stay in office and avoid prosecution. You can draw a whole lot of valid parallels between Rome in that time period and the US of today.
My hope would be a little pragmatic politics.
Build the case, and then have the warrants drawn up. Have someone from the US Dept of Justice take a trip to whatever resort the Clintons are sunning themselves in and make them an offer. The warrants stay in a safe deposit box for as long as the Clintons (including Chelsea) stay out of the US political and speaking arena.
America needs to wean itself off of this nasty tendency to encourage political dynasties; they’re worse than hereditary monarchies.
Again, pace Fraser and Eric, we need to avoid the evolution into the Roman Republic.
To me, the most elegant solution would be to not interfere in the ongoing investigation at all, after sticking some unimpeachable people into the relevant positions, and allow the investigation to run it’s course and prosecute if the evidence is there. You know, like it’s actually supposed to.
I’m trying to see the downside……
The principle that no one, no matter how powerful, how rich or how connected, is above the law is foundational to a functioning society: any exceptions undermine legitimacy.
The suggestion of nuking Paris is frivolous but as regarding nuking elsewhere, nuclear deterrence only works if there is uncertainty as to whether it will be used.
“And he might also fire a nuclear weapon at Paris . . . ”
“I’m trying to see the downside . . . ”
Suckers are like $20 million each. A leaflet drop of a couple hundred thousand pics of Muhammad would be cheaper, and probably just as effective.
The actual idea was to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the illegal activities of the Clintons and their campaign (and the Clinton Foundation).
It is absolutely imperative that the Augean stables in Washington are cleaned now, otherwise nothing will change, and the left will continue to slowly strangle the right, and the country. The government and the executive are full of Democrat operatives, who are becoming more and more brazen in their corruption, and their illegal partisan behaviour. The way the Justice Department has been covering up and protecting Hilary for example. Or the way the IRS has been used to unfairly target Tea Party groups. That all needs to be smashed as soon as possible. That will be very hard to do even if you’re really trying. If you go soft straight away then you have no hope, and you’ll become breakfast instead.
Don’t think that the Democrats aren’t coming back. That’s wishful thinking. Clinton was an awful candidate. But a more youthful and charming candidate probably would have won. Voter turnout was down on the last two elections — if the Dems can just improve a bit on getting their voters to turn out then they’re back in power.
Plus the US government is drowning in debt, and if the economy goes down as a result you know who the press will blame.
So the Republicans may only have four years to sort out Washington.
(The left never have any hesitation in removing enemies from posts, and installing their own people. The right needs to do this as well. Of course, the media will make a fuss about the latter, but not the former, but you have to stick to your guns.)
I think Cal’s point is well taken. And if Republicans do manage to clean the stables to any significant extent during these 4 years, their chances to stay in power for the following 4 and maybe beyond may well improve just as significantly. (Not that I’m holding my breath them actually doing any of that, you understand).
The media will make a fuss no matter what – damned if we do and damned if we don’t, so we might as well do.
Hillary Clinton will be pardoned, and perhaps Bill as well. If they are not pardoned by Obama on his way out the door, then they will be pardoned by Trump at some point early in his administration.
Part of saying that Trump is the lesser weevil is, of course, that what (I think) is sensible for him to do, he may not do. That said:
What is in it for him to pardon the Clintons? Why should he not appoint someone more robust than Comey, announce high-mindedly that he is of course not going to be vindictive, and then let justice run its course under his minions while he does other stuff? Other than getting his core supporters to write him off as just another phoney who rolls over for the commentariat, what would pardoning them offer him? Provided he keeps his own hands out of it and just says, “If you find there’s a clear demonstrable case then prosecute it, just like for any ordinary Joe”, what’s the downside for him?
He has of course every reason to sound like a pussy cat until he’s actually in that ole’ oval office himself, of course. He’s not unique in that. “The most depressing thing for an admirer of Lincoln is to read the speeches he gave during the journey from his election to his inauguration” (Bruce Catton, ‘The Coming Fury’, quoted from memory). Lincoln’s job was to say nothing that would let anyone claim he was provoking the looming civil war, but he could not avoid speaking at every train stop, so he uttered trite or silly or spun nothings at great length.
The senate will have at least 46 Democrats, 2 independents and a slender majority of Republicans. The more establishment Republicans would prefer Trump’s veep. The more tea-party ones want the Clintons humbled. He won’t save himself (in the event of future trouble) by a corrupt deal with the Clintons (whose popularity with and influence on other Democrats may now be waning). His core voters are his safety.
Right I agree with several commentators here. I think that Trump and Guliani should do what is right. (I know that is an alien concept in politics.) This is not a matter of finessing the politics, it is a matter of the justice department doing their job and prosecuting someone who has evidently committed some serious crimes.
The press can pretend it is vindictive, but the press will criticize everything Trump does (including “Trump Evicts Black Family” headline in another post here, which was hysterical.)
To the point of the commentator that the democrats will be back, I agree. But what is the danger here? That if Trump’s administration does the right thing that the dems will have to do the right thing too?
And sure, let the President issue a pardon if he will. That will leave a taint on him and on the Clintons. Nonetheless, the Trump Justice department should still go after all the people below Clinton, equally guilty, and prosecute them.
Again, this isn’t a vindictive thing, it is the justice department doing what they are supposed to do. Good God, these people defrauded the US Government to take for themselves money earmarked for widows and orphans in a disaster area in one of the poorest places on earth. If you made up the worst crimes you could think of, it is the sort of shit that they did, and we should just let them slide. Why? Because they are big and powerful? That is exactly the problem.
But I could be entirely wrong. And he might also fire a nuclear weapon at Paris if a Hollande statement is carelessly translated to suggest his penis is of inadequate length. It is a dice roll.
Genuine question: why do people think Trump is volatile and will lash out if insulted? Having seen every imaginable insult thrown his way the past six or eight months, it seems to me he has the hide of a rhinoceros. He’s far thicker skinned than most politicians, anyway.
I’ve heard the oh my God Trump is going to start a nuclear war thing many times over the last few weeks, from usually sensible people. It’s just part of the media mind game that went on during the election. Pointing out that Hillary was the WW3 candidate just got me funny looks.
Eric – Sadly, that would be a terrible mistake. Once powerful people get the idea losing a political battle means jail or execution they’ll do anything to stay in power. It’s begging for a coup.
If I had my way exiting politics for good would get you a blanket pardon.
I think that is a mistake, Eric. To start with, a blanket pardon is a blank check to do anything to enrich yourself or hold onto power. Secondly, absent the pardon, lack of prosecution would show that there are laws for the proles and anything goes for the nobility (the political elites). You would attract the worst to politics – well, okay, that already happens. And then, most politicians don’t need an excuse to hold onto power by any means they think they can get away with. Paul Marks is right that a special prosecutor should be appointed.
And finally, a question: How could Obama pardon Hillary for crimes that she has not been convicted of?
Reading this, I can’t help wondering if some people would have given Sauron a pardon and a pension.
Let us remember the fine John Gourier, a British gentleman, who brought a case against a Labour Attorney-General, Sam Silkin for his abuse of his position, in which the erratic Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, pronounced:
Excellent quote Mr Ed. It is going in my database.
The real motivation for Obama to pardon Clinton over the e-mail server is that if she goes down for that, he might too. He knew more about it than he let on.
There’s less personal reason for him to pardon her over the Clinton Foundation shenanigans (especially seeing as he’s never liked her, apparently). But it won’t look good for his ‘legacy’ if his Secretary of State goes to jail for corruption, so that may be reason enough to give her as wide a pardon as he can get away with.
Leaving aside what Trump should do for a moment,
I don’t think that was what that comment was getting at, but since you brought it up: hell, yeah. As someone else said somewhere else: politicians don’t like putting other politicians in jail, because they know they may be next in line.
Trump may seem a maverick, he may be a maverick of sorts – but once he moves into the WH, he becomes part of the establishment and of the political system. And, unless the Big Office is not going to corrupt him financially (granted, he’s rich as he is – so maybe not), and unless some intern is not going to file a complaint about him grabbing her by the kitty, or showing her his cigar, he will be as vulnerable as any power-seeking narcissistic bully who decided it’s time to move up to the big league. So I, for one, see a pardon – but I could be wrong.
“Genuine question: why do people think Trump is volatile and will lash out if insulted?”
Exactly. It is Hillary who is the warmonger; there’s not a single conflict that the US is involved in which she has not supported, and there are several (notably Syria) where she advocated our involvement but was overruled. Trump is the one who has consistently argued for a reduced American presence in foreign conflicts. Anyone who asserts that Trump is more likely to get us into WW3 than Hillary is either grossly ignorant or simply dishonest.
In the same way Ford pardoned Nixon. The prosecution is irrelevant. As president you can pardon anyone who’s committed a federal crime, as long as it’s in the past.
You can’t pardon future crimes because that amounts to a change of law.
“The real motivation for Obama to pardon Clinton over the e-mail server is that if she goes down for that, he might too. He knew more about it than he let on.”
This is an excellent point.
If Hillary is prosecuted, the normal path for the DOJ is to use its targets to get to higher-ups in the scheme.
If Obama is implicated at all – if he can be proven to have known about this, or if he recommended it, or (my favorite) if he had his own server somewhere and Hillary got the idea from that, the last thing he wants is for someone to be saying to Hillary “testify against him, and you’ll get probation – refuse, and get prison.”
bobby b, that’s a fair point, but it exposes a far deeper issue: If Obama knew about, and either authorized or tacitly acquiesced in, Hillary’s use of the private email server (or, as you suggest, had one of his own [that’s one I hadn’t heard before!]), his pardon of her would do nothing to protect him from prosecution for his own misdeeds. And the elimination of any possibility of her being held to account would raise such anger (in certain quarters) that it could inspire a deeper, relentless search for evidence against him, and maybe even a special prosecutor. Would we prosecute a former President for willful violation of 18 U.S.C. §793 (“gathering, transmitting or losing defense information”)? Who knows? But is that a risk Obama would want to take, especially for someone whom he dislikes anyway?
Isn’t speculation fun?
Laird, if I had any confidence that our DOJ would even ALLOW a deep and relentless search for evidence against Obama – heck, if I had any confidence that they haven’t already destroyed such evidence – then, yes, I’d agree that Obama should divorce himself completely from a possible Hillary pardon. Heck, the FBI slow-rolled turning over Cheryl Mills’ computer to the DOJ for destruction because THEY didn’t trust the DOJ.
Our DOJ is now a hack partisan Democrat enforcement arm. It will take three Republican presidents to clear out the scum.
And if Hillary is pardoned, she’ll have no incentive to give her own evidence, plus, all of her underlings will be safe from any prosecutorial pressures to testify themselves. (“My boss Hillary, the pardoned one, told me to do this and assured me we had authorization” is a powerful tool with which to introduce reasonable doubt into any underlings’ prosecution, so much so that those underlings will never be pressured into testifying against Obama either.)
And, yeah, speculation IS fun! Especially since I was mentally prepared to be speculating about the same circumstances, but under President Clinton.
(The “Obama server” idea popped up when we found that Obama had been e-mailing Hillary’s account using his own pseudonymous address. As far as I know, there’s been no real digging into that whole subject. But, as far as I know, even after myriad FOI document disclosures from the exec branch, no one asking for O’s e-mails has ever received any from his unknown address – we only learned about this through Wikileaks, IIRC. It’s just fun speculation, once again!)
The DOJ has certainly been politicized and grossly corrupted by that hack Eric Holder, and undoubted the rot there now runs deep. But with a competent and dogged Attorney General much of that could be pruned away. I’ve heard Rudy Giuliani’s name mentioned for that role (remember, he was US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, the most important and high-profile US Attorney in the country; the man is no slouch); do you really think he would shrink from the task? Or, to suggest another name, would Trey Gowdy (my personal preference)? I’m not as pessimistic as you about the potential for the rehabilitation of that department.
Seeing who Trump selects for his key cabinet appointments over the next few days and weeks is going to be very interesting, and telling.
I don’t share your optimism in this regard.
You know how executive branch employment works – we have the Civil Service rules to do away with the “fill the agency with your hacks” philosophy that used to pervade our national system. Because we know that new leaders need to be able to put their own people in to some extent to make the agency their own, we allow for a small percentage of political hires. These hires are legally subject to being fired when an admin changes. But the core – meaning most lawyers in the DOJ – are supposed to be hired on merit, not politics, and they get job protection.
If you look at the hundreds – thousands? – of DOJ lawyers hired since O was elected, you see a very disturbing pattern. Every single one has been a highly partisan activist progressive. During this same time, non-progressives have been eased out. The agency is now just about 100% far-left activists.
(J. Christian Adams, over at PJ Media, used to be a DOJ attorney. He did some very good writing several years ago about this transformation. He actually got a list of recent hires – lots and lots of them – and traced each person back to some Democrat activist position.)
So, all of these people – policy-making people, in many instances – are protected by the Civil Service rules from being replaced.
Guiliani or Gowdy would be excellent choices – as would Cruz – but I think it will take years before the progressive bent of the DOJ can be reined in. It’s almost as bad as the EPA.
Clinton should have thought about her slogan, as her message was ‘Make America grate again’.
Mr Ed, you’ve been saving that up, haven’t you? 😛
Actually, it has quite a lot of potential in that area. A lot of people said that Clinton would get a pass because Obama’s DoJ would never prosecute a Democrat. These people managed to overlook the prosecution and and conviction of Rep. Jesse Jackson jr, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Detroit ex-Mayor Kwame Fitzgerald, Rep. Chakah Fattah, CA State Sen. Leland Yee (then a favorite for next CA Sec of State and possibly Governor), and NY state Rep. Sheldon Silver (Speaker of the Assembly for over 20 years).
That would be a pretty impressive collection of trophy heads for a Republican administration. But all of these people were smaller than the Clintons. Putting them away would reinforce the principle magnificently.
The Chicago defendants interfered with the desires of the ascendant Democrat cabal, one of which was Obama. Blago was thought to be a strong source of testimony regarding Obama’s crim-kingpin patron Tony Rezko.
Kwame F got involved in all sorts of non-ignorable stuff, including partying with strippers, the subsequent murder of one of those same strippers, 13,000 text messages to various strippers, public monies missing, etc., and the story was in the public realm for quite some time before a Michigan county prosecutor brought state charges against him. No fed involvement at all, is what I remember.
Fattah was caught stealing millions of dollars in campaign monies. His guilt was paraded in the news for quite some time before the feds sought an indictment against him – in the news for so long, they were looking quite lax.
Leland Lee was just batshit crazy, and got caught in a large gun-running scheme, which garnered him little Democrat support.
Silver had been ripping off the public for millions for decades when (finally) US Atty Preet Bharara (one of the few AUSA’s willing to cross party lines) nailed him. Bharara is the exception to the rule that Obama’s DOJ IS Obama’s DOJ. Bharara would not be a bad choice for Trump’s AG, even though he’s one of the most career-focused guys you’ll ever hope to meet.
I wouldn’t use this list to champion our DOJ. When they go after a Democrat, it’s usually because they look foolish for not having already done so.
Eric;
“Sadly, that would be a terrible mistake. Once powerful people get the idea losing a political battle means jail or execution they’ll do anything to stay in power. It’s begging for a coup.”
See, frex, Pinochet. Of course he was a nasty righty sort. Perhaps an example from the progressive side might cause everyone to call a truce.
Sorry, I fantasize sometime…