Tom Lester, a long-term reader of this site, provides his take on the decreasing consistency in Law, or at least its equitable application. Mr. Lester has the advantage/disadvantage of age, as does Mr. Pelerin. The disadvantage is that one finds it harder to do simple things or at least do them as quickly and easily. The advantage is that it makes it easier to put matters into proper perspective.
Below is his take on the Rule of Law:
Does This Country No Longer Consider the Rule of Law Relevant?
Hillary Clinton had started her litany of blame for the reasons she had lost the 2016 election: Russian interference, the DNC hadn’t provided adequate financing, the “Deplorables” of the Trump base, etc., never once considering that voters in the electoral states just didn’t like her and cast their votes for a non-politician in hopes of getting action rather than rhetoric.
But the establishment, comprised of elite Democrats and Republicans, could not, would not take someone outside their orbit, and mercilessly attempted repeatedly to dispose the President, and even today continue that onslaught to prevent Trump from ever running again for the office. Despite their attempts, Trump’s achievements arguably far outnumber those holding the office for the past seventy years.
Back in 2017 I was musing with a former boss on how newly elected President Donald Trump might bridge the divide that this country was experiencing. Even though in my mind, that division had been initiated by Obama with his class warfare, attempts to transition to a socialist European democracy, Iranian nuclear deal, and Climate Change Paris Accord. Hillary was repeatedly claiming her victory of the popular vote – the pretense of Democrats proposing that the popular vote instead of the Constitutional Electoral Vote should be the standard in Presidential elections.
I thus proposed with that former boss that Trump might meet with Hillary and Bill Clinton privately to offer the following:
- He would not ask the DOJ to investigate Hillary’s unlawful use of a private server for governmental business as well deletion of her numerous emails on that server.
- In exchange, the Clintons would immediately shut down the Clinton Foundation, which was collecting large amounts of foreign monies, while never directing the funds to worthwhile projects that their charter promised. The funds would be contributed to charitable, worthy organizations outside the political world.
- Also in exchange, the Clintons would never again seek any elective office nor serve in any political capacity within the federal government.
His question hit me forcibly: “So what you’re saying, Tom, is that there should be laws that you and I have to obey, but those same laws that certain people don’t have to obey?” While my proposal was to hopefully calm the prevalent divisiveness, his question cut to the heart of the matter of morality and lawfulness. I had to agree that those disobeying the law should be prosecuted.
A good friend and I recently discussed the findings within the documentary by Dinesh D’Souza entitled “2000 Mules”. It is my opinion that the documentary offered substantial evidence of widespread fraud, particularly in the battleground states where it focused, and that it is the obligation of law enforcement to thoroughly investigate the evidence it rendered. My friend, however, pragmatically argues that we need to let it drop and go forward without further investigation.
I fully understand his stance. Since the administration of Ronald Reagan, who was and is loved and admired by most Americans, the opposition party has done everything in their power to maline the GOP. It was subtle during the George H.W. Bush years, but become much more aggressive during the George W. Bush administration. After the media love affair with Obama, whose main stream reporters and commentors were truly determined to be the reason for his victory, the opposition party learned it could be toxic in its attacks against the GOP, and what a delicious target Donald J. Trump made, he not a member of the political elite and never elected to any public office.
We’ve now endured seven and a half years since Trump came down that escalator in New York to announce his candidacy for President of the United States. And since that day, the media and the opposition party and the media did everything possible to derail his administration. Even as his actions were achieving some of the best results many of us have ever seen.
So I can appreciate the view of my friend. I suspect he, like most Americans, want to see an end to the bickering and think, I believe incorrectly, if we simply turn our backs on the misdeeds and lawlessness of the party now in power in Congress and the White House, calm will again stroud the nation.
But there’s that nagging question that my former boss levied some five years ago. Should we not investigate the evidence of the 2020 election? Should we disregard why the J6 committee broke precedence with its membership, attempting to find an “insurrection” while over 500 riots were conducted in major cities while buildings costing $2 billion were torched? Should we pretend that an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Associate didn’t happen? Should we believe that the son of the president was simply a businessman engaged in lawful activities abroad?
I know the outcomes of such investigations may be buried by the present party in power and by the president. Does that make it right? In the words of Theodore Roosevelt, should we be one of “..those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”