Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Law Talk: A Comment on March 27 Episode

 

“Stunned” is the best word to describe my reaction to Richard Epstein’s stated opinion that all should be forgiven with those Federal employees who abused their power in the FISA/Russian collusion drama for fear of the downside to such a pursuit of justice.

This scandal has roiled our country and had significant financial and emotional costs for the targets involved — not to mention the negative impact on foreign policy over the past two years, of which I am painfully aware, living abroad. But what the heck, let’s mention it. Can you imagine the damage done to our negotiating position with enemies and allies alike who were told by lovelies like former Secretary of State John Kerry just to wait it out, the pesky Trump would be gone soon? Try.

No, sir. In order to make sure that this doesn’t happen again — for at least a decade or so — there must be a cost paid by those complicit in this chicanery. If we cannot control the corrupt actions of Federal employees in responsible positions, there will be a concerted effort by citizens like me to shut it down. By “it,” I mean the FISA courts, and its ilk.

Further, in order to restore a little faith in our justice and IC community, there must be an atonement through the criminal courts for the egregious illegalities. Epstein’s litany of instances of collusion present in the Clinton investigation where no such charges were brought plus the difference in the treatment of those surrounding Clinton who were given immunity, versus those in the ‘Trumposphere’ who had the hounds of legal hell set upon them makes the case for me. As it stands now, I will hold them (IC/Justice) in contempt if there is no redress.

Judge Rosemary Collier has kindly given us a, shall we say, “roadmap” in her scathing opinion on the Obama Justice Department’s use of four contractors to illegally access the NSA database in the unmasking/leaking of info on targeted US citizens to the jackals in the press. These were all violations of the Espionage Act. Pick up the damn baton.

Tags:

There are 67 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    Yes, absolutely. Rush Limbaugh has been saying this for months.

    • #1
    • May 1, 2019, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I agree.

    Over and over, abuses are ignored and we are told to move on. Then the next abuse happens. 

    Some “libertarian”

    • #2
    • May 1, 2019, at 12:27 PM PDT
    • 16 likes
  3. RightAngles Member

    Amen to that. Not only will the country never heal until we see some perp walks, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (I can dream, can’t I?), but also if these people suffer no consequences, the country will forever have a two-tiered justice system. We can’t let that happen. The People need to know that nobody but nobody is above the law. We are all citizens in a Republic governed by fellow citizens. Some people need to be reminded of that.

    • #3
    • May 1, 2019, at 1:14 PM PDT
    • 22 likes
  4. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I do worry the loss of career and public humiliation(although it appears to be adoration from the Left) is all the punishment most of those responsible ….. for the most despicable abuses of our Federal law enforcement and counter intelligence agencies for political purposes by the incumbent party against their political challenger …. are going to get.

    I hope I’m wrong.

    • #4
    • May 1, 2019, at 1:38 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    I agree with you that current or former Federal employees who abused their power should be brought to justice. However, regarding this section of your post:

    Judge Rosemary Collier has kindly given us a, shall we say, “roadmap” in her scathing opinion on the Obama Justice Department’s use of four contractors to illegally access the NSA database in the unmasking/leaking of info on targeted U.S. citizens to the jackals in the press. These were all violations of the Espionage Act.

    I’ve read Judge Collyer’s opinion and it does not state that the illegal access was used for “unmasking/leaking of info on targeted U.S. citizens“. I would like to know if it was, but it is something we simply do not know yet.

    • #5
    • May 1, 2019, at 1:38 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Richard Easton Member

    If someone affirms on pain of perjury that certain facts underlying a FISA application have been verified, they should go to jail if they have not. The Dims circa 2004-6 screamed about warrantless wiretapping under Bush. They have gone strangely silent about egregious spying by the Obama administration on the Trump campaign (and on opponents of the Iran deal and journalists such as Sharyl Attkisson).

    • #6
    • May 1, 2019, at 1:42 PM PDT
    • 13 likes
  7. JoelB Member

    Ah yes, but who can we turn to when even “our own” Richard Epstein is for amnesty?

    • #7
    • May 1, 2019, at 1:50 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    It makes no difference to me who gets burned.

    Heads on pikes.

    • #8
    • May 1, 2019, at 1:56 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  9. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    If someone affirms on pain of perjury that certain facts underlying a FISA application have been verified, they should go to jail if they have not. The Dims circa 2004-6 screamed about warrantless wiretapping under Bush. They have gone strangely silent about egregious spying by the Obama administration on the Trump campaign (and on opponents of the Iran deal and journalists such as Sharyl Attkisson).

    Richard,

    Your argument seems very sound to me. I don’t understand how Dr. Epstein reached a conclusion otherwise.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #9
    • May 1, 2019, at 2:41 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Well put.

    From a political perspective, what could possibly be worse than corruption at the highest levels of our law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and justice department?? I can’t think of anything.

    • #10
    • May 1, 2019, at 4:57 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  11. Sweezle Member

    I share your shock on Richard Epstein’s stated opinion that all should be forgiven with those Federal employees who abused their power in the FISA/Russian collusion drama for fear of the downside to such a pursuit of justice. We deserve some justice after the horrific Mueller Russia investigation.

    • #11
    • May 1, 2019, at 5:07 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  12. Randy Webster Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    Amen to that. Not only will the country never heal until we see some perp walks, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (I can dream, can’t I?), but also if these people suffer no consequences, the country will forever have a two-tiered justice system. We can’t let that happen. The People need to know that nobody but nobody is above the law. We are all citizens in a Republic governed by fellow citizens. Some people need to be reminded of that.

    Sorry, RA. We already have a two-tiered justice system. If you get caught breaking the law, sayonara. A government official; not so much.

    • #12
    • May 1, 2019, at 5:45 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  13. EtCarter Listener

    Polygraph administrators (In general) are among the best guys at asking the kind of questions that reveal stuff like trying to “game” a FISA court. Even when the old Voight-Compf machine isnt plugged-In, a smart poly-examiner would know what to ask the dudes trying for the warrant(s), and I would likely trust his impressions ‘re the jokers misleading/concealing game changing facts, or shooting-straight, yknow?

    • #13
    • May 1, 2019, at 7:36 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. ctlaw Coolidge

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    I agree with you that current or former Federal employees who abused their power should be brought to justice. However, regarding this section of your post:

    Judge Rosemary Collier has kindly given us a, shall we say, “roadmap” in her scathing opinion on the Obama Justice Department’s use of four contractors to illegally access the NSA database in the unmasking/leaking of info on targeted U.S. citizens to the jackals in the press. These were all violations of the Espionage Act.

    I’ve read Judge Collyer’s opinion and it does not state that the illegal access was used for “unmasking/leaking of info on targeted U.S. citizens“. I would like to know if it was, but it is something we simply do not know yet.

    Is this the opinion?

    • #14
    • May 1, 2019, at 7:52 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    I agree with you that current or former Federal employees who abused their power should be brought to justice. However, regarding this section of your post:

    Judge Rosemary Collier has kindly given us a, shall we say, “roadmap” in her scathing opinion on the Obama Justice Department’s use of four contractors to illegally access the NSA database in the unmasking/leaking of info on targeted U.S. citizens to the jackals in the press. These were all violations of the Espionage Act.

    I’ve read Judge Collyer’s opinion and it does not state that the illegal access was used for “unmasking/leaking of info on targeted U.S. citizens“. I would like to know if it was, but it is something we simply do not know yet.

    Is this the opinion?

    Yes. The sections related to the programs under discussion are around pages 80 to 90.

    • #15
    • May 1, 2019, at 7:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Henry Racette Contributor

    I usually find myself in agreement with Mr. Epstein, and so was concerned when I read this post. I went back and listened to the podcast; I may have listened to it when it came out, but didn’t remember anything particularly offensive (from my perspective) when it was first broadcast.

    At 18:20, Troy Senik addresses John Yoo, saying:

    Lindsey Graham… has said that he’s going to launch an investigation into the origins of this whole controversy…. Is this in your judgment a worthwhile endeavor, or ought the Republicans to just let this go cold now that we’ve got this controversy behind us?

    Following Yoo’s reply, at 21:35 Epstein begins:

    Well I think some people at the FBI surely ought to be prosecuted. I’m not comfortable enough with the cast of characters to remember all of them. Andrew McCabe or whoever it is who is responsible, Peter Strzok, Lisa…, someone clearly knew that the information in that dossier was false….

    Anybody who signed that warrant and who knew that it contained fake or insubstantial information seems to me to be a fair charge for obstruction of justice, and that would be some very very high people.

    He then continues, at 22:31 — and this, I assume, is where he ran afoul of Ms. O’Sullivan:

    The question that I have is not whether they’re guilty. I think they are. The question is whether or not we really want to put this nation through another kind of tumultuous prosecution of this sort which are going to give rise to incredible partisan hostilities. So maybe what should happen is the Attorney General should announce that he’s going to prosecute whoever it is he’s going to prosecute and Mr. Trump, out of his magnificence of his idea, will give them a pardon for their particular sins before the trial starts.

    At that point, the other two members of the panel laugh, teasing Epstein for making such a generous suggestion. Epstein plays it up, saying:

    How do you like that? I’m always filled with bright ideas, some of which even I don’t believe.

    But, look, I think this is much more serious, I regard it going back all the way through before the election, when the Democrats stonewalled on every one of these particular issues.

    So throughout the discussion, both Epstein and Yoo assert, repeatedly, that the Democrats and high-level government officials from the Obama administration are almost certainly guilty of criminal conduct. Epstein brings up what I think is a valid question, and one worth asking: is it good for the nation to aggressively pursue these matters now? He then made what sounds almost like a tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a Presidential pardon.

    Using the word “magnificence” to describe President Trump provides, I think, a hint of the lack of seriousness with which Mr. Epstein offered the idea. And, in fact, no one took it very seriously; a moment after he made the comment, even Mr. Epstein didn’t take it very seriously, as his “some of which even I don’t believe” comment suggests.

    I’ve posted elsewhere that I want the corruption rooted out of the executive agencies, and particularly the Department of Justice. I will be quite happy to see criminal prosecutions; I suspect Mr. Epstein would probably be okay with it as well, his comment notwithstanding.


    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power. We should, however, investigate thoroughly, explain what happened to the public so as to bring shame on the appropriate parties and to make a permanent record of their transgressions, and attempt to put in place mechanisms to prevent such misbehavior in the future.

    I would let Obama and Clinton go; I would let a bunch of heads roll in the alphabet agencies, and bring criminal charges against several. Yes, it’s a double standard. I still think it makes sense.

    • #16
    • May 1, 2019, at 8:34 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  17. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I usually find myself in agreement with Mr. Epstein, and so was concerned when I read this post. I went back and listened to the podcast; I may have listened to it when it came out, but didn’t remember anything particularly offensive (from my perspective) when it was first broadcast.

    At 18:20, Troy Senik addresses John Yoo, saying:

    Lindsey Graham… has said that he’s going to launch an investigation into the origins of this whole controversy…. Is this in your judgment a worthwhile endeavor, or ought the Republicans to just let this go cold now that we’ve got this controversy behind us?

    Following Yoo’s reply, at 21:35 Epstein begins:

    Well I think some people at the FBI surely ought to be prosecuted. I’m not comfortable enough with the cast of characters to remember all of them. Andrew McCabe or whoever it is who is responsible, Peter Strzok, Lisa…, someone clearly knew that the information in that dossier was false….

    Anybody who signed that warrant and who knew that it contained fake or insubstantial information seems to me to be a fair charge for obstruction of justice, and that would be some very very high people.

    He then continues, at 22:31 — and this, I assume, is where he ran afoul of Ms. O’Sullivan:

    The question that I have is not whether they’re guilty. I think they are. The question is whether or not we really want to put this nation through another kind of tumultuous prosecution of this sort which are going to give rise to incredible partisan hostilities. So maybe what should happen is the Attorney General should announce that he’s going to prosecute whoever it is he’s going to prosecute and Mr. Trump, out of his magnificence of his idea, will give them a pardon for their particular sins before the trial starts.

    At that point, the other two members of the panel laugh, teasing Epstein for making such a generous suggestion. Epstein plays it up, saying:

    How do you like that? I’m always filled with bright ideas, some of which even I don’t believe.

    But, look, I think this is much more serious, I regard it going back all the way through before the election, when the Democrats stonewalled on every one of these particular issues.

    So throughout the discussion, both Epstein and Yoo assert, repeatedly, that the Democrats and high-level government officials from the Obama administration are almost certainly guilty of criminal conduct. Epstein brings up what I think is a valid question, and one worth asking: is it good for the nation to aggressively pursue these matters now? He then made what sounds almost like a tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a Presidential pardon.

    Using the word “magnificence” to describe President Trump provides, I think, a hint of the lack of seriousness with which Mr. Epstein offered the idea. And, in fact, no one took it very seriously; a moment after he made the comment, even Mr. Epstein didn’t take it very seriously, as his “some of which even I don’t believe” comment suggests.

    I’ve posted elsewhere that I want the corruption rooted out of the executive agencies, and particularly the Department of Justice. I will be quite happy to see criminal prosecutions; I suspect Mr. Epstein would probably be okay with it as well, his comment notwithstanding.


    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power. We should, however, investigate thoroughly, explain what happened to the public so as to bring shame on the appropriate parties and to make a permanent record of their transgressions, and attempt to put in place mechanisms to prevent such misbehavior in the future.

    I would let Obama and Clinton go; I would let a bunch of heads roll in the alphabet agencies, and bring criminal charges against several. Yes, it’s a double standard. I still think it makes sense.

    Interesting.

    Maybe we should get Paul Manafort’s perspective on all these generous non-prosecutions.

    • #17
    • May 1, 2019, at 8:58 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  18. Randy Webster Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power.

    This surprises me, Henry. Is it your opinion that if one if popular enough, he essentially has immunity from the law?

    • #18
    • May 1, 2019, at 9:01 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  19. Boss Mongo Member

    Ma’am,

    Concur wholeheartedly.

    • #19
    • May 1, 2019, at 9:08 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power. We should, however, investigate thoroughly, explain what happened to the public so as to bring shame on the appropriate parties and to make a permanent record of their transgressions, and attempt to put in place mechanisms to prevent such misbehavior in the future.

    I would let Obama and Clinton go; I would let a bunch of heads roll in the alphabet agencies, and bring criminal charges against several. Yes, it’s a double standard. I still think it makes sense.

    This is the problem with banana republics — the unequal application of the law.

    But, to your point, I’ve long thought Trump should issue pardons to Obama and Clinton (thereby suggesting guilt — which happens to be the case). And now Bill Barr is just the man to prosecute the snot out of the corrupt Obama minions. But, I repeat.

    • #20
    • May 1, 2019, at 9:25 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  21. Henry Racette Contributor

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power.

    This surprises me, Henry. Is it your opinion that if one if popular enough, he essentially has immunity from the law?

    No. But I’d be willing to argue that, as long as abuses are rare, we take a light hand with Presidents and major presidential contenders when considering prosecuting crimes relating to their political conduct. To a substantial part of the electorate, such prosecutions will have the appearance of political vendettas, and I think that’s bad for the country.

    We’re talking about, at most, leniency toward one or two individuals each decade. That seems a small enough price to pay for national stability, and hardly likely to undermine the rule of law. I understand that not everyone will agree.

    • #21
    • May 1, 2019, at 9:29 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  22. EtCarter Listener

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I usually find myself in agreement with Mr. Epstein, and so was concerned when I read this post. I went back and listened to the podcast; I may have listened to it when it came out, but didn’t remember anything particularly offensive (from my perspective) when it was first broadcast.

    At 18:20, Troy Senik addresses John Yoo, saying:

    Lindsey Graham… has said that he’s going to launch an investigation into the origins of this whole controversy…. Is this in your judgment a worthwhile endeavor, or ought the Republicans to just let this go cold now that we’ve got this controversy behind us?

    Following Yoo’s reply, at 21:35 Epstein begins:

    Well I think some people at the FBI surely ought to be prosecuted. I’m not comfortable enough with the cast of characters to remember all of them. Andrew McCabe or whoever it is who is responsible, Peter Strzok, Lisa…, someone clearly knew that the information in that dossier was false….

    Anybody who signed that warrant and who knew that it contained fake or insubstantial information seems to me to be a fair charge for obstruction of justice, and that would be some very very high people.

    He then continues, at 22:31 — and this, I assume, is where he ran afoul of Ms. O’Sullivan:

    The question that I have is not whether they’re guilty. I think they are. The question is whether or not we really want to put this nation through another kind of tumultuous prosecution of this sort which are going to give rise to incredible partisan hostilities. So maybe what should happen is the Attorney General should announce that he’s going to prosecute whoever it is he’s going to prosecute and Mr. Trump, out of his magnificence of his idea, will give them a pardon for their particular sins before the trial starts.

    At that point, the other two members of the panel laugh, teasing Epstein for making such a generous suggestion. Epstein plays it up, saying:

    How do you like that? I’m always filled with bright ideas, some of which even I don’t believe.

    But, look, I think this is much more serious, I regard it going back all the way through before the election, when the Democrats stonewalled on every one of these particular issues.

    So throughout the discussion, both Epstein and Yoo assert, repeatedly, that the Democrats and high-level government officials from the Obama administration are almost certainly guilty of criminal conduct. Epstein brings up what I think is a valid question, and one worth asking: is it good for the nation to aggressively pursue these matters now? He then made what sounds almost like a tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a Presidential pardon.

    Using the word “magnificence” to describe President Trump provides, I think, a hint of the lack of seriousness with which Mr. Epstein offered the idea. And, in fact, no one took it very seriously; a moment after he made the comment, even Mr. Epstein didn’t take it very seriously, as his “some of which even I don’t believe” comment suggests.

    I’ve posted elsewhere that I want the corruption rooted out of the executive agencies, and particularly the Department of Justice. I will be quite happy to see criminal prosecutions; I suspect Mr. Epstein would probably be okay with it as well, his comment notwithstanding.


    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power. We should, however, investigate thoroughly, explain what happened to the public so as to bring shame on the appropriate parties and to make a permanent record of their transgressions, and attempt to put in place mechanisms to prevent such misbehavior in the future.

    I would let Obama and Clinton go; I would let a bunch of heads roll in the alphabet agencies, and bring criminal charges against several. Yes, it’s a double standard. I still think it makes sense.

    Agreed re the documenting of how it all went down. It is, perhaps, the most enduring good that one generation can do for a later society, yes?

    • #22
    • May 1, 2019, at 9:40 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Richard Easton Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power. We should, however, investigate thoroughly, explain what happened to the public so as to bring shame on the appropriate parties and to make a permanent record of their transgressions, and attempt to put in place mechanisms to prevent such misbehavior in the future.

    I would let Obama and Clinton go; I would let a bunch of heads roll in the alphabet agencies, and bring criminal charges against several. Yes, it’s a double standard. I still think it makes sense.

    This is the problem with banana republics — the unequal application of the law.

    But, to your point, I’ve long thought Trump should issue pardons to Obama and Clinton (thereby suggesting guilt — which happens to be the case). And now Bill Barr is just the man to prosecute the snot out of the corrupt Obama minions. But, I repeat.

    Trump tried to be generous after the election to Clinton and Obama. We see how they responded to that. At a minimum, he should declassify all of Obama’s crap and let it sink his reputation (I know the MSM will do it can to protect him).

    • #23
    • May 1, 2019, at 9:56 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  24. Boss Mongo Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    No. But I’d be willing to argue that, as long as abuses are rare, we take a light hand with Presidents and major presidential contenders when considering prosecuting crimes relating to their political conduct.

    Are rare and relatively acknowledged to fall into misdemeanor category. Top Secret//Special Access Program data transmitted via dirty internet and stored on an unsecured server is serious–hang by the neck until you are dead serious. The definition of TS: Information classified at the highest level of sensitivity by a government, based on an assessment that it would cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed.

    So, we ain’t talkin’ breaking campaign finance laws, here. If I had been found doing what HRC did with TS & TS//SAP information, they’d’ve dug a deep hole, thrown me into it, filled in the hole, and then built the prison on top of that. Maybe, when it came time for the trial, they’d’ve dug me up to stand trial. But I doubt it.

    At LBH (Levels Below Hillary), lying to a FISA court is serious. Using IC HUMINT sources for political purposes is equally bad.

    Nope. They need to get tried, convicted, and maxed out on the punishment.

    Not, mind you, because it was anti-Trump. But because it overtly violates every oath these people took to support and defend the Constitution, and harmed our Constitutional Republic.

    • #24
    • May 1, 2019, at 10:19 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  25. Boss Mongo Member

    But an officer on duty knows no one — to be partial is to dishonor both himself and the object of his ill-advised favor. What will be thought of him who exacts of his friends that which disgraces him? Look at him who winks at and overlooks offenses in one, which he causes to be punished in another, and contrast him with the inflexible soldier who does his duty faithfully, notwithstanding it occasionally wars with his private feelings. The conduct of one will be venerated and emulated, the other detested as a satire upon soldiership and honor.

    Brevet Major William Jenkins Worth

    • #25
    • May 1, 2019, at 10:21 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  26. Melissa O'Sullivan Inactive
    Melissa O'Sullivan

    Dear Commenters,

    For clarification, what I had a stunned reaction to was the first portion of Epstein’s remarks. ‘The Question’. Do we “…really want to put this nation through…” phrase. I fully understood the second portion was farce.

    While I have high regard for Richard Epstein, he should sit in the “Karl Rove Timeout Corner” for this utterance. Every time I hear this being floated, the phrase “strangled at birth” comes to mind. 

    I appreciate all your comments. Thank you, Henry Racette, for being so kind as to pinpoint the precise moment in the podcast that evoked my reaction, for benefit of the reader. I am truly grateful.

    M.

    He then continues, at 22:31 — and this, I assume, is where he ran afoul of Ms. O’Sullivan:

    The question that I have is not whether they’re guilty. I think they are. The question is whether or not we really want to put this nation through another kind of tumultuous prosecution of this sort which are going to give rise to incredible partisan hostilities. So maybe what should happen is the Attorney General should announce that he’s going to prosecute whoever it is he’s going to prosecute and Mr. Trump, out of his magnificence of his idea, will give them a pardon for their particular sins before the trial starts.

    At that point, the other two members of the panel laugh, teasing Epstein for making such a generous suggestion. Epstein plays it up, saying:

    How do you like that? I’m always filled with bright ideas, some of which even I don’t believe.

    • #26
    • May 1, 2019, at 11:11 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  27. Profile Photo Member

    Why we can’t prosecute Hillary or Buraq for their crimes no matter how treasonous or egregious. Don’t you know who they are? Why they are above the law- that is all there is too it. So is Mueller, Brennan, Clapper, Biden and all the rest. They are the paragon of Deep State power and authority and we must genuflect before their very magnificence at all times. And I don’t want to hear about any equal justice, these people are simply above us in our new wondrous Progressive order. Prosecution of these paragons of Deep State virtue would tear asunder all the great Progressive values our betters have sought to instill in us the last 100 years.

    It’s 11:31 pm Cali time. Happy Commie May Day y’all.

    • #27
    • May 1, 2019, at 11:34 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  28. Profile Photo Member

    Sorry for the snark above.

    What Richard Epstein and Henry apparently want to protect and continue is our two-tiered system of justice. One set of harsh rules for conservatives and another set of whimpy easy to circumvent rules for Progressives should be the order of the day I guess.

    So pray tell, were either one of these guys in favor of the investigation and the eventual forcing out of office for Richard Nixon’s crime – a cover up of a two bit burglary that he had nothing to do with? But now are these two also in favor of giving a pass to this wanton and massive abuse of Executive Authority by former Obama Administration officials and the Mueller Gestapo that definitely threatens our very legal system and the just application of the Rule of Law?

    Central to the effectiveness of our now thoroughly entrenched two tiered system of justice are two facts:

    • That 90% or thereabouts of bureaucrats and those in government are Progressives

    • If you give immunity to the malfeasance of these officials time and again, sooner or later, the malfeasance is going to benefit the Progressives in a big way, which it of course has and it will lead (which it has) to wanton abuse for Progressive policies over and over again without any sort of appeal or redress.

    But what really gets me are all these so-called “reasonable”men and women that still want to protect the perpetrators of this abuse out some sort fear of tearing asunder the fabric of society knowing full well the wretched damage this abuse does to society, without realizing that the failure to protect a just Rule of Law will absolutely destroy our society as we know it pretty damn quick in a horrible and bloody way.

    • #28
    • May 2, 2019, at 12:02 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  29. Guruforhire Member

    The criminal misconduct and overt politicization of our shared institutions is a republic ending crisis. I am serious.

    The gaslighting that this is not the case, is worse for our institutions than the underlying misconduct.

    • #29
    • May 2, 2019, at 5:32 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I am not in favor of criminal prosecution of either Clinton or Obama. I think we should be very cautious about aggressively pursuing criminal convictions against people who received approximately half of the popular vote, recognizing that it will inevitably be perceived by a great many people, rightly or wrongly, as a political act of empowered winners against those no longer in power.

    This surprises me, Henry. Is it your opinion that if one if popular enough, he essentially has immunity from the law?

    No. But I’d be willing to argue that, as long as abuses are rare, we take a light hand with Presidents and major presidential contenders when considering prosecuting crimes relating to their political conduct. To a substantial part of the electorate, such prosecutions will have the appearance of political vendettas, and I think that’s bad for the country.

    We’re talking about, at most, leniency toward one or two individuals each decade. That seems a small enough price to pay for national stability, and hardly likely to undermine the rule of law. I understand that not everyone will agree.

    It appears, the abuse cases are not rare.

    • #30
    • May 2, 2019, at 5:42 AM PDT
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.