Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State. This includes 47% who say it’s Very Likely....There's your measure of effectiveness for our legal institutions. Two-thirds of voters think she broke the law (which, of course, she did). Only one in four think there's any real chance the law will be applied to her.
But just 25% think it is even somewhat likely that Clinton will be indicted.
The party of more government has an interest in maintaining faith in the government. They're sacrificing more than they know on the altar of Hillary Clinton.
11 comments:
No, this isn't the measure of our legal institution's effectiveness. It's the measure of the degree of comfort Democrats have with political corruption. The decision to indict Clinton lies with the Attorney General, a political appointee. She may very well decide not to indict the presumptive nominee of her party out of loyalty to that party or the Democratic administration of which she is a member. If she turns a blind eye to criminal behavior she would otherwise prosecute to further her party's political power it is an abuse of her authority for an illegitimate purpose. However, that reflects a failure on her part and not necessarily the DOJ or the office of the Attorney General.
You may be right that the party of big government should have an interest in maintaining faith in the government, but I have seen precious little evidence they care about that at all. Increasingly, I am convinced that the Democratic Party has become little more than a criminal racket seeking power for its own sake.
I'm afraid that I believe we have to include the Justice Department, including the Attorney General, in "the legal establishment." They're performing a key role, even the leadership role, in whether or not the law gets enforced. Our legal establishment has convinced a majority of Americans that it will not effectively enforce the law against a sufficiently powerful, well-connected person.
Now, I hope that the majority in this poll is wrong. I hope that the FBI will bring an indictment recommendation so strong and overarching, reaching beyond the classification law to the racketeering being run out of the Clinton Foundation, that Justice will feel they have no choice but to indict.
My point is that this set of ideologues really should want to alter this conviction among Americans that the government can't be trusted to do its job. If you want the government to be in charge of health care, you should really be bothered by the VA scandal. You should be bothered by the continuing failure of Obamacare, with its double digit price increases for plans that have sky-high deductibles and no networks. If you want more gun control, you need the people to have rock solid faith in the legal system to control crime.
As per that Summers piece the other day, every time the government can't do its job the progressive agenda withers a little. When it's clear that corruption has gotten so thick that the government just won't do its job, the withering will only hasten.
It's not seeking power for its' own sake. Follow the money.
There's your measure of effectiveness for our legal institutions.
No, there's your measure of the public's perception of our legal institutions' effectiveness. That it may be an accurate perception is a separate issue.
I also have to wonder how much of those 25% were folks voting their hopes rather than their expectations.
The party of more government has an interest in maintaining faith in the government.
No, it doesn't. Any party of more government has only an interest in maintaining the power of government. Faith in it is irrelevant.
[T]hat reflects a failure on her part and not necessarily the DOJ or the office of the Attorney General.
The practical depth of that failure will be demonstrated by the number of DoJ resignations, and by who resigns, over Lynch's decision not to indict. I've also seen comments that should Comey decide not to recommend an indictment, there would be "mass resignations" from the FBI. Again, tough talk, but until the resignations occur (and how key they are) it will be only talk.
If you want the government to be in charge of health care, you should really be bothered by the VA scandal. Usw.
"You" here does not include the Democratic Party. As others have said, they only want the power. Full stop.
Eric Hines
No, there's your measure of the public's perception of our legal institutions' effectiveness.
I'll give you Maimonides' proof for the existence of a king (a kind of analogical proof for the existence of God). How do you know there's a king in the land? You know it when you see that a strong man is not robbing a weak man. The strong man clearly knows that he will be punished, and yet the weak man cannot punish him. Thus, there must be a king in the land.
There's a real connection between the perception that the king will enforce the law, and the effectiveness of the laws. It is usually not the immediate presence of an officer of the king, but only the strong man's perception that the law will be enforced that is really restraining him. If he perceives a strength that is not really there, the law is effective even though it lacked the practical power. If he doesn't perceive a strength that is there, he may be punished but only after he has committed his crime. And of course if he doesn't perceive a strength that isn't there, he will be just another example of the ineffectiveness of the law.
Suppose those honest FBI guys do resign, tired of the corruption? Who do we think is going to replace them? And who will do the replacing? won't take long before there are no good guys left.
Suppose those honest FBI guys do resign, tired of the corruption? Who do we think is going to replace them?
If they don't resign, how will we tell the difference between them and those who would replace them were they to resign?
The strong man might also not be robbing because he's inherently good. He also might not be robbing because he knows there's a posse of citizens that will deal with him. Lots of reasons alternative to the presence of a king. Who might be the chief robber, anyway.
...he may be punished but only after he has committed his crime.
Whether he perceives a strength or not, I'm down with punishing only after the crime, rather than a government engaging in prior restraint.
Eric Hines
"If they don't resign, how will we tell the difference between them and those who would replace them were they to resign?"
When they start arresting people for corruption. That is the only effective course of action. Once they resign, they lose any power to enforce the law. But it is correct to assume that if they do neither, then they are complicit in corruption.
The left's constant and passionate attack on Christianity is directly related to this. If a man believes he is held to a higher authority than the King, he can summon the courage to challenge the King, secure that even if he be destroyed by the King, that his soul shall be saved.
Conversely, with no belief in an ultimate higher power, why should anyone stick their head up? So the King can grind them down like a worm, destroy them and their family for all time?
This is the essence of why they want to destroy the Church- because it lends courage to challenge the State.
And they said Bush Lied and People Died. Then they also said Republicans pro Iraq liberation online were chickenhawks and Keyboard warriors, during 2003-2008.
They also said, also online, that the Republican party is the most corrupt and the Democrat party the most efficient and non corrupt, on Black5 website comments during one election cycle. Maybe the 2008 one.
Nobody actually countered that line by the Democrat/Leftist agent provocateur. They didn't have enough hate or experience in their hearts to do so. Most people just sat down, shut up, and did as they were told. Arguing on the internet was meaningless, after all. It's not like you can lose your job by making a post on Facebook... oh wait.
When they start arresting people for corruption.
There have been police officers who attempted to resist the Leftist unions and corrupt police authorities in various towns, cities, etc. They were terminated and isolated for their efforts. Sometimes literally terminated.
Check copblock and other sources for various stories on that. People may not know this, but the Left's Praetorian guard in charge of park management, what they call the park rangers or the NPS, have had a significant number of resignations before the crisis with the shutdown ever came to it. The only ones that were left, were the ones capable of obeying Hussein's order to put the rod down on the public.
"If they don't resign, how will we tell the difference between them and those who would replace them were they to resign?"
Ah! This is a good test. Any who resign are safe; we fire the rest. Then start over with the honest ones in charge.
Post a Comment