Maybe angry Christians should try chanting 'Pray for Biden' instead of 'Let's go Brandon'?
“Are we supposed to stand up to lies? Of course. We have every right and responsibility to expose lies for what they are. … The question is, ‘What are we going to say and how are we going to say it?’ It doesn’t help our cause when people see Christians acting like the people that we’re trying to oppose.” - GetReligion
- 28 views
There is a difference between how different presidents and their administrations interpret the application of the law. This is called common sense. Most things in law are not black and white, there is a lot of gray. Republicans tend to go one way, Democrats tend to go another. Immigration is a great example of this. Applying the immigration statutes depends a lot upon perspective. It’s just a fact.
Don’t ask me about church constitutions. You and I both know that is a minefield so long and deep the body count is enormous. One side thinks they are following the letter of the law, the other is trying to be fair… etc. And usually it all comes down to someone trying to get the pastor fired… sounds familiar to politics doesn’t it?
All this being said, some things are illegal, obviously.
Can you give me one concrete example of a law Biden is violating. Maybe that would help.
for saying Democrats rule differently than Republicans… you guys are a trip. I NEVER said Democrats are perfectly legal. Nor did I say Republicans were either. I said they interpret the same statute in different ways… is this new information for you all?
[Bert Perry]The standard of conviction is a bit absurd when we consider that former AG Eric Holder characterized himself in public as President Obama’s “wing man”, and his successor, Loretta Lynch, infamously held an impromptu meeting at the airport with the husband of a woman who was being investigated, Hilliary Clinton. For that matter, Nixon was never actually convicted of anything. Then you’ve got very real crimes committed by the BATFe (Fast & Furious) and the IRS that were basically whitewashed by the Obama administration.
History tells us very clearly that investigators often “slow-walk” investigations where they really don’t want the truth coming out, and this reality dictates that we ought to “read between the lines” and see what out there reeks of corruption. For Biden, that’s pretty clear. The FBI was provided a laptop which clearly shows the President’s son smoking crack with a hooker who may be underage while on a trip coordinated by his father, and that same laptop clearly indicates that President Biden was doing pay to play on his overseas trips while he was VP. Then you’ve got the issue of flying illegal immigrants all over the country instead of deporting them as the law requires.
This ain’t just different priorities. This is corruption. And there’s a lot more—the pipeline cancellation, throwing the Afghans under the bus while leaving eighty billion bucks worth of equipment for the Taliban, etc..
Bert,
OK. If these examples are so illegal, why no trial? To you its cut and dry…
[Mark_Smith]for saying Democrats rule differently than Republicans… you guys are a trip. I NEVER said Democrats are perfectly legal. Nor did I say Republicans were either. I said they interpret the same statute in different ways… is this new information for you all?
Exactly. This is why we have a judicial branch of government. A law can be passed, but not be constitutional. Did one branch do something wrong? Not really. But the judicial branch provides a balance across the other two branches, and vice versa. The Republicans don’t like what the Democrats do and call it illegal, over reach, ineptitude, and the Democrats do the same to the Republicans. Each side claims the other is doing illegal activities, and of course the media and other personalities weigh in and amp up their respective bases on the evils of the other side. In most cases nothing is illegal,despite personal feelings.
Because, as I noted before, the AG can be the President’s “wing man”, at least one admitting as much in public, and the FBI and DOJ has a demonstrated pattern of slow walking and outright ignoring allegations that make Democrats look bad. It’s called the abuse of prosecutorial discretion, really.
Let’s be honest here; is there any reason besides “refusal to investigate” that the Comey investigation of Hilliary’s server failed to issue a single subpoena for evidence? No warrant to get the server on premises? You’ve got the likelihood of foreign leaders showing a potential President a list of embarrassing things to manipulate that person into torpedoing U.S. security, and the FBI can’t be bothered to convene a grand jury.
That’s how bad it’s gotten, Mark. Sorry, I’ve worked jobs where many of my coworkers had security clearances, and I guarantee you that if any of them had done a tenth of what Hilliary did, the sun would not have set before the FBI had both them and all of their electronic devices in custody.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Let’s be honest here; is there any reason besides “refusal to investigate” that the Comey investigation of Hilliary’s server failed to issue a single subpoena for evidence?
They did investigate. The use of private email servers is unfortunately a standing practice amongst administrations including both Republican and Democrat. Even Trump’s team and Ivanka used private email servers for official communication. An investigation was done, it was sent to the Justice Department. The conclusion was that crimes may have been committed but charges should not be pursued. This was based on the following points, which is standard legal practice up and down the country at all levels:
- Context of the person’s actions
- Intent
- Past and Existing practices
The Justice Department took the information and determined that it was unlikely a successful conviction could be realized in court. The Trump administration had the option to further pursue, but couldn’t.
[Mark_Smith]There is a difference between how different presidents and their administrations interpret the application of the law. This is called common sense. Most things in law are not black and white, there is a lot of gray. Republicans tend to go one way, Democrats tend to go another. Immigration is a great example of this. Applying the immigration statutes depends a lot upon perspective. It’s just a fact.
Don’t ask me about church constitutions. You and I both know that is a minefield so long and deep the body count is enormous. One side thinks they are following the letter of the law, the other is trying to be fair… etc. And usually it all comes down to someone trying to get the pastor fired… sounds familiar to politics doesn’t it?
All this being said, some things are illegal, obviously.
Can you give me one concrete example of a law Biden is violating. Maybe that would help.
Former HHS Secretary Tom Homan lays out his thoughts in a Hill op-ed. The law in question is 8 USC 1182. There’s not as much gray as you’ve been left to believe.
David, when there are clear signs an investigation did not investigate, then I tend to take the conclusions with a grain of salt. That includes:
- Comey & Hilliary. No grand jury convened, no subpoenas issued, etc. And contrary to what you argued, no it is not typical for Executive branch employees to keep classified information on private servers. (and if it is, it should be punished….shouldn’t be one set of rules for the rank & file and another for those named “Clinton”)
- Larry Nassar investigation. Same as above. They didn’t even bother interviewing a number of people with relevant evidence.
- IRS scandal investigation. Multiple complainants noted they were not even interviewed.
- Hunter Biden’s laptop. No grand jury, no subpoenas issued. Do you think you or I would have gotten this courtesy?
Like it or not, there is a pattern of “slow walking” investigations or outright ignoring evidence of crimes, and hence I do not accept the notion that the DOinJustice conclusions are conclusive,.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Like it or not, there is a pattern of “slow walking” investigations or outright ignoring evidence of crimes, and hence I do not accept the notion that the DOinJustice conclusions are conclusive,.
Like it or not, you are armchair quarterbacking a bunch of items that you are not privy about, except what the media prints (which may or may not be accurate). Comey can’t convene a Grand Jury. He is the investigative arm of the DOJ. Hunter Biden’s laptop was found under Trump’s watch. Trump was one of the loudest and certainly the highest government individual seeking to discredit Biden. His entire apparatus that was under his direct control in the Executive Branch could not develop anything. That should give a clear indication that there is more behind the scene that what you are privy to.
Yes, David, I’m absolutely sure that the DOJ was able to come to wonderful, authoritative conclusions by not actually collecting data in those cases. That’s why prosecutors nationwide were perplexed at Comey’s “exoneration” of Hilliary, why numerous lawyers are aghast at the lack of progress with Hunter’s laptop, and why eminent people in the field (e.g. John Manly and Rachael Denhollander) are astonished and appalled at how the FBI dropped the ball in the Nassar case.
Are they all “armchair quarterbacks”, David? Really, even if I didn’t have great sources among eminent lawyers, the simple fact that little actual investigation appears to have been done in a lot of cases where the perpetrator was a known liberal is a huge red flag that suggests that some of us are more equal than others. That, in turn, ought to scare the Shinola out of us.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[KD Merrill]Former HHS Secretary Tom Homan lays out his thoughts in a Hill op-ed. The law in question is 8 USC 1182. There’s not as much gray as you’ve been left to believe.
NO ONE will ever be charged with this. NO ONE. Move on. Its politics. You can work yourself up into a frenzy as much as you want, but laws are never going to change the immigration issue UNTIL both parties agree to work with each other to make commen-sense immigration laws that both parties agree on.
[Mark_Smith]NO ONE will ever be charged with this. NO ONE. Move on. Its politics. You can work yourself up into a frenzy as much as you want, but laws are never going to change the immigration issue UNTIL both parties agree to work with each other to make commen-sense immigration laws that both parties agree on.
You’re probably right that there will be no charges (let alone trials) over breaking laws that those in power want to ignore. More’s the pity. Whether laws are enforced or breaking them prosecuted shouldn’t be about politics.
As to common-sense immigration laws that both parties agree on, that’s what is not going to happen. When one side wants to let everyone through, then laws restricting this in any way will never be agreed to. Although most of them won’t admit to it, the open-border types don’t think there should be any idea of a nation at all. The fact that that is not practical doesn’t enter into their thinking in any way. They can get together and sing “Imagine” all day long, but realities are still realities.
Dave Barnhart
NO ONE will ever be charged with this. NO ONE. Move on. Its politics. You can work yourself up into a frenzy as much as you want, but laws are never going to change the immigration issue UNTIL both parties agree to work with each other to make commen-sense immigration laws that both parties agree on.
I note that you can’t dispute the fact that this is an inarguable violation of the law. At one point, this was considered “common-sense” immigration legislation enough to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the POTUS. It appears then, that you’re arguing that violating the law really isn’t that big of a deal because “it’s just politics.”
That appears to be setting a dangerous precedent, does it not? What other crimes should be ignored because “it’s just politics”?
Furthermore, what other laws should be set aside because they’re no longer considered “common-sense”?
…..but in related matters, many police departments do indeed have vice squads that do punish this sort of thing.
Seriously, while the recourse we have today is mostly at the ballot box (often nullified by Obama/Clinton/Biden appointees at the jury box), I think as well that there ought to be criminal law applied as well. I remember that when JFK appointed his brother as AG, one of the key issues mentioned in his confirmation was that he would be expected to equitably apply the law. We should insist on that, and actively impeach/convict those who refuse to equitably do so—e.g. Merrick Garland, Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch come to mind as recent violators of this principle. It should be noted as well that another remedy is to disbar them—yes, the DC Bar is also pretty corrupt, but didn’t our Lord note that even corrupt judges would grant justice when the outcry got too loud?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[KD Merrill]NO ONE will ever be charged with this. NO ONE. Move on. Its politics. You can work yourself up into a frenzy as much as you want, but laws are never going to change the immigration issue UNTIL both parties agree to work with each other to make commen-sense immigration laws that both parties agree on.
I note that you can’t dispute the fact that this is an inarguable violation of the law. At one point, this was considered “common-sense” immigration legislation enough to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the POTUS. It appears then, that you’re arguing that violating the law really isn’t that big of a deal because “it’s just politics.”
That appears to be setting a dangerous precedent, does it not? What other crimes should be ignored because “it’s just politics”?
Furthermore, what other laws should be set aside because they’re no longer considered “common-sense”?
I have no idea if it is “illegal” or not. Its one man’s opinion. I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be, so I do not address it. What I do know is NO ONE will be charged for a crime for this. The courts give wide latitude to the current executive branch.
Discussion