Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Our Government “At War” With Us?
Provocative question of the day: Is our government “at war” with us? This question is ambiguous and this post can go a lot of different ways, so let me be clear in what context I am using “government,” “war” and “us”:
- Government = government power and authority by whomever is permitted to employ it without pushback and limits by persons ostensibly holding power over those persons.
- War = an overwhelming level of physical coercion and threat consistent with subjugation either temporarily or permanently.
- Us = citizens who may or may not be completely compliant with the complex set of laws in our country but who do not represent a reasonable threat of violent response to a government demand for compliance.
The question is stimulated by the circumstances of Roger Stone’s arrest yesterday under the authority of the Special Counsel. Like the Manafort arrest that preceded it, there was no obvious reason to send in a SWAT team conducting a pre-dawn raid. Both men had been cooperating with the Special Counsel through attorneys. Both men assert that they would have been happy to surrender peaceably with their attorneys. In the case of Stone, a judge released him immediately on a personal bond, something that would never be done with a violent criminal and flight risk.
Sadly, these instances are not isolated. Recall the “rescue” of Elian Gonzales by the Clinton administration directed SWAT team. In that instance there is no doubt there would have been resistance by the people where he lived, but would it have been violent? Could not beefy US Marshals with ordinary side-arms not been sufficient?
Ruby Ridge seems like a similar tragedy, but at least there was an arguable potential for violence against lightly-armed officers.
And then there are instances of mistaken raids and “swattings” that have resulted in injury or death. These incidents underscore how dangerous military tactics can be. Not just to the targets of the raid but to the raiders as well.
So why are these tactics employed in circumstances where the same objective could have been achieved through lesser means? Is it simply an intimidation tactic; an important reminder that each an every citizen is subject to the power of their government? (Note the presence of CNN to broadcast the power of the government.)
Does that thought give you a feeling of security? It shouldn’t. These tactics are not suppressing violence in Chicago. In the case of Stone, they are a response to alleged “process crimes” impacting the task of the Special Counsel to discover….what exactly?
Published in General
Mollie Hemingway pointed out that Clapper and Brennan haven’t been arrested for lying to Congress.
This is the thing. We’re living in a two-tier society where the laws don’t apply to Democrats. Call it “war” if you want, and the Left is winning it because the Left occupies the commanding heights of government and culture. End of story.
The upper levels of the FBI seem quite powerful with a uniform offensive philosophy.
The FBI was created 132 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
How did Andrew Johnson ever get impeached without an 1860s FBI?
Hoover was the leader of the FBI for 48 of the first 66 years. Even the longest-serving Supreme Court justices only serve 30 to 35 years or so, and they are simply one vote of nine.
Apparently the only reason Hoover is not FBI director today has to do with human life expectancy.
The same people who feared Hoover now cheer on the FBI, especially when the Republican Party controls the entire government, and it is led by an outsider.
The FBI is like any organization or government control philosophy. It simply wants more and more and more power. It’s like the EU or the promise that US income taxes would be some tiny amount for some tiny percentage of the population.
(The FBI. Maybe one of their bots is even reading or scanning my current conversation.)
The Cold Civil War is everywhere.
It kind of seems like a short slide to show trials. As Lindsey Grahm noted at the Kavanaugh hearings, he hoped they didn’t get power because they were showing what they would do with it; smear good people for their own benefit.
I can’t keep it straight. How many people have been sentenced or are awaiting sentencing for crimes that occurred after Muller started his investigation?
I don’t know that number but here’s what I see. The only indictments that involve anything about Russia are Russians who will not show up in an American courtroom. All remaining indictments or guilty pleas relate to crimes that were committed before the 2016 election campaign began or are for process crimes that were committed as part of the investigation.
Isn’t Manafort the only US-based person in that category?
Excellent post covering a lot of bases.
It should be noted that recently one right wing speaker, I think it was Ben Shapiro, was able to receive an $80K legal settlement for not being allowed to speak on University of Calif campuses.
I think so, and maybe Cohen but not sure. And for the rest it’s all sign-zee-papers-old-man.
I thought Manafort got the slammer for dodgy tax/business practices well before the 2016 campaign. I suppose we could ask the internet…
Maybe I got it wrong. I was wondering if everyone was charged with crimes that occurred before the whole collusion investigation started. I think the answer is no one other that Manafort, and perhaps Cohen.
I just listened to an interview with Stone. I can’t believe what I’m hearing about the way he was arrested. Seventeen armed vehicles? He and his wife dragged out of the house dressed only in their night clothes? Two amphibious vehicles in the canal near his home? When Stone opened his front door, he was staring at two guns pointing right at him at close range. It is fortunate that he didn’t have a heart attack.
The government has already seized all of his money so he cannot even launch a defense.
The American people have to act. For one thing, when they are serving on juries, they have to refuse any information gotten this way. For another, they need to become involved in their local law enforcement agencies, including the local branch of the federal agencies such as the FBI.
The government is acting this way because the American people have stopped being involved in their local and state government. We need citizen government-oversight committees that watch everything the government is doing.
We had a committee like that in our town when we suspected corruption. It was fantastic. They did a great job monitoring what the local government agencies were doing. These should exist everywhere to monitor every government agency in our country.
You should add, “And the elected officials on the right don’t do squat about it.”
There is too much centralized government and centralized power in this country. It is unworkable.
… and terrifying.
It’s a tough problem. So many rely on government largesse. The genuinely productive don’t have the time or inclination to worry about this stuff. The trend is locked in.
Susan, with respect, I submit my response to @katebraestrup from another thread:
@katebraestrup, I have read articles by several authorities with actual experience in exactly this kind of indictment and arrest; one of the best I have seen is “WHY DID CHRISTOPHER WRAY ALLOW MUELLER’S THUGS TO USE 29 FBI AGENTS ON ROGER STONE?” by Victoria Toensing, a former Assistant Deputy Attorney General who supervised the prosecution of, and thus the arrest of, drug dealers and she describes them as “gun toting, vicious dudes.” Noting that Stone does not even own a gun nor have a license to own one, and also noting that his wife is deaf, she says:
“Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Chris Wray should hang his head in shame. At a time when he should be restoring the FBI’s reputation after Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others tarnished its image as our country’s premier law enforcement agency, he allowed 29 gun slinging agents to make a predawn arrest of former Trump advisor Roger Stone.”
As an attorney ( or, as many of us in this phase of our life would put it: “a recovering lawyer”), albeit not a Federal Criminal law practitioner, but still one who cares deeply about the American Rule of Law, I have written before about the jackboot thug tactics of the Mueller team (http://ricochet.com/507804/archives/is-muellers-chief-assistant-pitbull-a-madman/; http://ricochet.com/580007/judge-sullivan-orders-mueller-gang-to-turn-over-documents-in-gen-flynns-case/)and how very deeply they disturb me as they are so transparently intended to serve just one purpose, and that is to strike fear into the hearts of the accused (I’m so old I still actually believe in the presumption of innocence!) — they are an utter disgrace and now that the new FBI Director has authorized this fanatical piece of theater, he is a disgrace as well. In fact, one of our colleagues here at Ricochet quite directly called me out for not being “nuanced” enough in writing about this. I find it not hard, but impossible, to be even the slightest bit “nuanced” about outrages against the Rule of Law like that inflicted upon American citizens by Mueller and his gang of enforcers like Andrew Weissmann, who has a proven history of exactly this kind of lunacy (see the superb book by Sidney Powell entitled “License to Lie”).
I have seen other discussions strongly indicating that rank and file agents are upset that the new Director authorized this staged performance for the benefit of CNN, and thereby the world, and it seems none of them has ever heard of so many armed agents being sent out on an arrest like this.
This man and his insanely overpaid goons need to be stopped. It is my very sincere hope that the new Attorney General may at least modify this ridiculous witch hunt as soon as he is confirmed.
Sincerely, Jim
I am increasingly convinced that my paranoia and upset is warranted.
Yes, when you’re a well to do, unarmed old man, and a half dozen guys wearing silvered sunglasses show up in the middle of the night with a full army behind them in field gear locked and loaded you’re the one who’s crazy.
Manafort was taken to task for business affairs that were not quite in order back in 2005 and 2006. Since the ability of the government to charge someone for a financial crime is limited to a time period of 7 years from the date of the event, I am not sure how the Mueller people managed to pull this off. It is yet another reminder that the alphabet agencies have been politicized beyond belief.
Mention Uranium One and HRC participating in that deal that took place circa 2110, and left leaning people role their eyes and say it is ancient history. But the libs are hoping to extend the Mueller probe into the far reaches of time, the early 1990’s to be precise. Then they hope to corner Trump on whatever dealings with the Russian mafia in NYC that might have occurred. (Most big time realtors in that city were dealing with such people during that era.)
They probably charged tax fraud which is probably not subject to time limits.
Ancient history? So 2110 B.C?
I’ve often wondered if Hillary is one of the undead…
Then why is tax record keeping requirements limited to 7 years, after which time a corporation or individual may shred their records?
Great point. Any one here who can answer this?
My recollection is probably out of date, but there were several different statutes of limitation depending upon the type of tax violation charged. Simple underreporting of income by less than 10% was 3 years, underreporting income by more than 10% was 6 years, fraud was 10 years and unlimited for any year for which a return was not filed at all. Someone like Manafort likely filed some form of return every year, accurate or not. But if he was operating multiple business entities then the argument would be whether a particular entity complied with a filing requirement as opposed to be properly included in the tax return filed personally or by a different entity under Manafort’s control. So, as they say, “it’s complicated”.
I asked the question. I’ll try to throw out an answer. It might be that Manafort had been under investigation already. It’s possible that because of the previous investigation the statute of limitations was increased or reset. I had thought that Manafort had been exonerated with the previous investigation, however, so @caroljoy I am totally perplexed. But that is nothing compared to my perplexation over Manafort’s assault/Roger Stone style arrest and his being held in solitary confinement as if this is still the Middle Ages.
They investigated about Manafort years ago. For whatever reason they decided not to pursue it. It was probably partly because the DOJ is so loose about foreign lobbyist laws.
What is your confusion? This is just how law enforcement works nowadays. There is money to be made by government abuse of power and we have just the government employees that believe they deserve that money and will do as they please to further their goals.
And in light of whether or not our government is at war with us, and that the first victim of war is truth, consider this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-96mcyHCs&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0oAg2vfTS7R1p66AXoI1Y9V4yPVUNgeZJxst2kviSaTw78qZ6MIT1zlx8