“So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.”
-Padme Amidala (Star Wars Episode III)
“Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent– the LORD detests them both.”
-Proverbs 17:15 (N.I.V.)
-This post is dedicated to Hillary Rodham “That B***h” Clinton. May you rot and burn in Hell, you old hag.
This past 4th of July, me and some buddies went and saw some cool fireworks. We noted that it was the 240th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. We chillaxed and drank beer (the good stuff, 11% Alcohol) and then went home. The next day, I woke up, went to work, the usual. It was not until a few days later that I heard the news. It was not until a few weeks later that it sank in. This video says it all.
Now I will simply restate some of the many ramifications of this event. First of all, the nation as we know it died that very hour. The USA made it (albeit imperfectly) 240 years, through much turmoil and injustice, and this day marks a very grim turning point in American history. Why? Because we all just witnessed a woman legally get charged with what amounts to at least gross negligence and at most treason, and not only get off scot-free, but laugh about the whole affair. Never before, in my lifetime, has corruption happened that blatantly, at that level, and with that much gusto. Never before has the rule of law been disregarded so utterly.
For more context, I refer you to Rudolph Giuliani’s comments on the James Comey speech. Long story short, she should at least be serving 10 years in federal prison right now for what she did. We just watched a big fish get off the hook, in broad daylight, while laughing about it. We saw the deals (Bill Clinton’s “coincidental” meeting with Loretta Lynch on that airplane), the setup (Lynch agreeing to go along with the FBI director’s recommendation for the case), and the execution (Comey letting Hillary Clinton off the hook, while stating that if anyone else had’ve done what she did, they’d be prosecuted). We also saw how unconcerned and smug Hillary was about it all, as she was aboard Air Force One campaigning with Obama hours before she got off.
Politically, it is obvious why this had to happen. Understand that not only is her crime (if it were properly prosecuted) severe for a high level government official, but any known co-conspirators (likely including at least President Obama himself and Debbie W. Schultz, as well as many other politicians in power) would also be criminally liable for not coming forward about the email scandal while knowing of it. Basically, Hillary Clinton came very close to almost singlehandedly blowing up the political establishment, and the only way this was avoided was by the government deciding not to follow the law and to effectively put Hillary Clinton above it. I will leave you to think on what that means for Clinton’s political competence and credibility. Sidenote: Donald Trump is no saint, but he doesn’t even have the power to commit a crime that severe.
To make a metaphor, this is like how the mayor’s son can rob a bank in broad daylight, come in through the front door, take all the money, get caught, and get off, because…he’s the mayor’s son. He’s legally liable, but effectively immune. He’s (at least in that town) above the law. But even he, at some point, would be prosecuted if he committed a big enough crime. Regardless, this is a travesty of justice, because the guilty party is not punished.
Let’s get out of political-speak and focus on the real issue this presents here, one of the legitimacy of American law itself. The saying is that “Justice is blind”. One of the very basic concepts of Western legal philosophy is one of equity. In theory, laws should be enforced and prosecuted regardless of the offender. It should not matter, for example, if a bank robber is Black, White, Asian, Latino, male, or female, they should be punished for their crime of robbery. Ignoring questions of severity, it is common sense that SOME kind of punishment should be handed out for breaking the law.
If a law is supposed to only apply to a certain segment of the population, this should be stated in the law. I.E. if some laws don’t apply to, say, illegal immigrants in the U.S., this should be stated somewhere in the legal code regarding law enforcement and jurisprudence. The basic point is that laws should be enforced across the board in order to deter lawbreakers and promote orderly conduct in the land the laws apply to. If you start unevenly applying law, some people will decide to simply stop following it if they think they can get away with it.
The test of any law is if it can be applied to the rich, powerful, and famous. It is easy to prosecute a poor man for stealing, but does the CEO of Goldman Sachs also get jailed when he embezzles money, or does he get off due to lawyers, bribery, and political influence? Justice cannot be blind only for the poor and average. It must also apply to the rich and powerful. This is a huge imperative, because the rich and powerful cause much more damage overall when they break laws than when the less powerful do. In a way, they set the tone by their behavior. Not only does their legal immunity cause problems when they get away with breaking the law, but it inspires others to do the same (“If she can get away with it, maybe I’ll try…”), and moreover, erodes the credibility and respectability of the government when it becomes evident that it is either too corrupt or too impotent to evenly apply its own laws to the populace. This sows seeds of chaos and anarchy, which can cause rot and eventually ruin in civilizations.
What happened on July 5, 2016, at 11:15 A.M., was monumental. Hillary Clinton got away with treason and laughed. A big fish brazenly flouted the law, and got no punishment for the crime. This goes beyond politics. Point blank, Clinton is guilty, Comey and the F.B.I. be damned. The law is the law, whether enforced properly or ignored. In the eyes of many, it became crystal clear that day that if you have enough power and influence, you can be brashly above the law. It is not good for a nation when corruption rises to that level, and make no mistake, this will have massive implications down the line, even if Clinton is eventually indicted (don’t hold your breath…).
I will end with this simple question: If the rulemakers won’t follow the rules, why should I?