Government Is A Bully -- Of Pretty Scary Proportions
Mark J. Perry writes at AEI of the unbelievable -- save for anyone who recognizes every one of his examples as something that actually happened to somebody in the U.S.:
A government that will lock you up in a cage for smoking weeds grown in your back yard is a government that will take your children away from you for playing basketball unsupervised in your own yard. That same government will also seize your cash and keep it from you even if you broke no law and are not charged with a crime. They'll anally probe you against your will with a forced colonoscopy if they suspect you are hiding a small amount of drugs. They'll break into your house with a SWAT team kill your dogs and throw stun grenades that explode in your toddler's face, scaring him for life, etc. etc. etc. You get the point...A case like this is almost unbelievable because it goes way beyond nanny statism into the dangerous realm of state totalitarianism. For those of you who put faith in the government and tolerate them regulating your life, allow them to tell you what you can and can't put in your body - which plants and weeds and what type of milk you're allowed to ingest, accept government laws that force employers to pay their workers a mandated wage, etc., be careful what your wish for.... and watch out when a neighborhood snitch calls your government and they come and seize your unsupervised children.
From Glenn Reynolds at USA Today, only bureaucrats are above the law:
"On May 22, 2013, the IRS director (of exempt organizations) asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify before a House committee. She was placed on administrative leave. The following month, it was revealed that she received a $42,000 bonus. She retired in September."On Jan. 9, 2014, it was revealed that the Department of Justice attorney leading the investigation was a donor to the president's campaigns. A week later, the Justice Department revealed it would not bring any criminal charges. Attorneys for many of the targeted political groups complained that they had never been contacted in the investigation.
"On Feb. 2, 2014, the president stated in a televised interview before the Super Bowl that although there 'were some bone-headed decisions out of a local (IRS) office ... (there was) not even a smidgen of corruption.'
"On May 7, 2014, the House voted 231-187 to hold the former IRS director in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its investigation (six members of the president's party voted with the majority). The House also voted 250-168 to request the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate (26 members of the president's party voted with the majority)."
Of course, nothing happened. Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the U.S. Attorney was using "prosecutorial discretion." That discretion protected Lerner from the grand jury.
As Investor's Business Daily editorialized, this sets an ugly precedent. Under the Obama administration, officials are above the law -- at least so long as they're targeting Obama's political opponents. Accountability? Rule of Law? That's just for the little people.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3p7u1m
They said they wanted more government...
I R A Darth Aggie at February 9, 2016 4:33 AM
The turning point is going to be whether or not the Justice Department decides to prosecute Hillary Clinton in connection with the email-server scandal. That she flouted the law in regard to handling of classified information is not in doubt. Nor is the fact that she revealed intelligence sources and methods including the identities of covert operatives. And there is at least some evidence that she was using her government position and inside information to conduct private business (which was the motivation for having a private email server).
Conviction on at least the classified-information mishandling charges is a slam dunk if Justice prosecutes. So if they decide not to, or to plea-bargain down to some slap-on-the-wrist deal... I fear that if that happens, it will be almost impossible to keep classified information concealed in the future. People will figure that if Hillary can do it, why can't they? There will be so many leaks that it will be impossible to find them all. And people who are charged can use selective prosecution as a defense.
The legal standard regarding the laws for handling classified information is strict liability. Intent does not need to be proven, nor is incompetence or ignorance of the rules a defense. When you get a clearance, the government non-disclosure agreement that you sign binds you for life. I've known people who lost their jobs and were threatened with prosecution because they forgot to log some classified documents that were being destroyed. What Hillary did is orders of magnitude beyond that. This is a test for the U.S. legal system and law industry. It must not be found wanting.
Cousin Dave at February 9, 2016 6:45 AM
Cue the Obama defenders, who will claim that since {Bush, Bush, Reagan, some other it-must-be-a-Republican, pick one} did that, everything is completely OK, and in fact we love a President whose Administration does such a thing. Unless, of course, Mr. Obama is unaware. Unaware is good, too.
Radwaste at February 9, 2016 9:51 AM
Obama better pardon the felons in government as he goes out the door, or I will expect the next Attorney General to prosecute them. All of them.
MarkD at February 9, 2016 10:48 AM
Obama better pardon the felons in government as he goes out the door, or I will expect the next Attorney General to prosecute them. All of them.
Posted by: MarkD at February 9, 2016 10:48 AM
It's going to be a very long list. I suspect a lot of indictments are waiting until he is out of office specifically to preclude a pardon.
I don't think a pardon works unless there has been conviction (or a plea bargain).
However I suspect based on what Obama has done in the past he is more than willing to let these people swing in the wind, as long as he walks away.
It is what he is.
Isab at February 9, 2016 5:34 PM
"I don't think a pardon works unless there has been a conviction."
Gerald Ford pre-emptively pardoned Richard Nixon, and that pretty much set the precedent. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who was a fugitive at the time.
Cousin Dave at February 9, 2016 9:59 PM
Gerald Ford pre-emptively pardoned Richard Nixon, and that pretty much set the precedent. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who was a fugitive at the time.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 9, 2016 9:59 PM
I think Marc Rich was a convicted fugitive. And the Nixon pardon was an unusual case.
If Obama tries to pre pardon a bunch of people we might see another Supreme Court fight over this issue.
Isab at February 10, 2016 11:26 AM
"If Obama tries to pre pardon a bunch of people we might see another Supreme Court fight over this issue."
Pray for it! Otherwise the Reagan administration will remain the record holders for most prison de-lousings received.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 10, 2016 5:27 PM
"If Obama tries to pre pardon a bunch of people we might see another Supreme Court fight over this issue. "
Maybe. It is my understanding that historically the judiciary refuses to get involved in pardon cases, seeing it as an executive branch function. I'm guessing the Supremes would refuse to hear the case unless there was solid evidence of bribery. Even then, they might take the position that it is up to Congress to police. Of course, by then Obama will be out of office.
Cousin Dave at February 11, 2016 9:48 AM
A related aside, look up the rather amusing story of former Tennessee governor Ray Blanton. In 1979, as a lame-duck governor a few weeks from the end his term, Blanton was rather openly issuing pardons for bribes and for political supporters. A week before the end of his term, he pardoned a bunch of convicted murderers and rapists, and was all set to issue more. The state's law enforcement and the legislature were looking for a way to stop him, and someone came across this realization: although the new governor was traditionally sworn in on January 20, the state constitution did not actually specify a date. Late at night on January 17, they slipped governor-elect Lamar Alexander into the State House through a back door, and swore him in. When Blanton came to the State House the next morning, he found himself locked out.
Cousin Dave at February 11, 2016 10:01 AM
Leave a comment