Connect with us

Democrats

Imran Awan: Why conservatives shouldn’t root for a Wasserman-Schultz prosecution

Published

on

The developing case of Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman-Schultz’s information technology officer, Imran Awan, presents the newest moral conflict.

For conservatives!

Let’s analyze what many on our side (or any side in politics) are searching for. On one hand, we see the bloodlust for our “opponents” to fall, and even, to be injured. What’s sometimes expressed by rabid activists is the conclusion that the opponent (today, it’s DWS) is a crook, a criminal, an actual felon in waiting, and thus deserves whatever opprobrium we can muster.

There is a strategic and rational, and too-often-unspoken object (and desire), basis supporting these sentiments. The goal is to see the political opposition weakened in effectiveness. Discrediting them — at least among the sliver of the increasingly apathetic electorate which theoretically might have an open mind — in order to win over undecideds or even “flip” leaners, is thought of as advancing the ball downfield towards the end zone. Or at least, the red zone.

Or at least, a few inches away from your own end zone. This is why we go out to rallies and scream at the protestors on the other side. It’s nothing less than political trench warfare.

Lots of energy spent. Lots of loss. Little gained.

So we want to see our opponent’s downfall. But therein lies the moral quandary. How badly must the opponent suffer?

And for moral conservatives, Christian or otherwise, when does the lust for strategic gain cross into the overreach, the overzealous, even the immoral?

This brings up the other hand of the weighing process. Does possible criminality justify or rationalize our bloodlust? Do our political opponents deserve to lose their liberty, because they disagree with us?

This, my friends, is the practical, logical outcome of the chase for a scalp.

Wasserman-Schultz may personally face criminal prosecution. Her risk comes from several factors.

The federal criminal statutes are broad, and their interpretation is growing in scope to cover an ever-widening array of conduct. The “overcriminalization” trend has gotten increasing notice over the last two decades (perhaps an undesirable symptom of 9/11 and its rationalization for expanded government power), and bipartisan recognition on both sides of the congressional aisle. This trend can easily ensnare Wasserman-Schultz.

The easiest angles to pursue would be obstruction of justice and false statements. These are crimes often charged when an underlying “real” crime cannot be easily proven and the government decides to undercharge and press to prosecute on a simpler (if less deserving) charge.

Obstruction? This can cover lots of conduct taken to impede an ongoing investigation, particularly when the target (today, DWS, or her staff, or all of them) knew of the investigation.

And false statements? This is a related criminal activity, most notoriously used to prosecute Martha Stewart in the wake of insufficient evidence of her insider trading. This can cover any statement made to any government official. This is a broad statute.

When you see how broadly the criminal laws can be applied, you’ll understand why the most terrifying word in Washington is “investigation.”

Throw in the political ambitions or career resume-building of young lawyers trying to use a name prosecution — a “get” in those circles — to later become partners or even rainmakers in powerful law firms, and the ingredients are there for an investigation that will zealously pursue its prey, in search of enough evidence not to indict, but to convict (and ideally, to secure a plea deal).

In light of how these laws can be stretched and even abused, conservatives should stop and ask themselves whether this is a proper use of the fearsome power of the state.

Politics often spark efforts by the zealous to use the immense prosecutorial power of an increasingly overreaching federal government. Conservatives should show restraint and maturity, and ask themselves: Are we sure this is our side?

Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Distant Smoke

    August 1, 2017 at 6:39 am

    So DJT should be impeached for having the nerve to be elected President, but we shouldn’t prosecute DWS for treason because it’s a waste of time and energy? This is crazy.

  2. OptimumAnon

    August 2, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Agree with Distant Smoke. Our leadership is rarely held accountable as is (blagojevich in 2009, being the last I recall), and given the extremes of this political climate and the CLEAR crimes and coverups at play, prosecution should be a given. No one should be above the law, and it is clear that any person off the street would have been jailed for similar offenses without delay.

    To wit, how many devices need to be smashed with a hammer while under subpoena, and how many hard drives need to be erased with bleach bit before someone is jailed? Innocent people do not destroy evidence, and the destruction itself is a crime as well. Without accountability at the top here, the people will revolt. There cannot be a separate set of laws for leadership and the common civilian. Period.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Rep. Seth Moulton enters the Democratic nomination race

Published

on

Rep Seth Moulton enters the Democratic nomination race

The clown car continues to fill up as a new Democrat announces their presidential campaign seemingly every week. This time, it’s Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA), marking the third politician from Massachusetts to vie for the top spot. He joined Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and former Republican governor Bill Weld as hopefuls from The Bay State.

An Iraq War veteran from the U.S. Marines, Moulton led efforts to replace Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once the Democrats won back control of the House last year. His politics are pretty much indistinguishable from other candidates as he favors Medicare-for-All, gun control, and other common leftist notions.

Moulton has a tall mountain to climb on the fundraising side if he hopes to make it to the main debate stage. There’s still time, but he’ll need to get some heavy attention very quickly to be able to make a serious run.

Twitter Response:

Continue Reading

Democrats

How NOT to beat AOC: Run a big-dollar GOP candidate against her

Published

on

How NOT to beat AOC Run a big-dollar GOP candidate against her

There is some excitement coming out of the Bronx because of an alleged “big money donor” with connections who wants to defeat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) so badly, he or she is willing to fork over tons of dollars and influence in a campaign to turn the deep blue district red. This won’t happen. It will be disastrous if they try.

The only thing that could possibly work for the GOP to upend the hyper-leftist radical progressive would be to find the ideal candidate and run a purely grassroots campaign against her. Otherwise, they’d only be playing to her strengths.

If the GOP is serious about beating her, they need to forget the money angle. That’s not to say they don’t need money, but it needs to be money from within the district comprised of small donors who are targeted starting as soon as possible. They don’t need to appeal to the few Republicans in the district. They need to go after the independents and Democrats.

Their message must be simple, something to the effect of “The only candidate from the Bronx who is actually interested in the Bronx.” They have plenty of ammunition available to demonstrate how Ocasio-Cortez has her sights very clearly set on the national arena in which social media and battles with other Democrats is making her a nationwide star. They need someone who attends city council meetings, community meetings, and is 100% focused on the issues that concern the people of the Bronx instead of the grand ideas of Green New Deals and Medicare-for-All.

Then, they need a PAC that hammers away at the detrimental effects losing the Amazon deal has had on the Bronx. This is a gimme.

If their plans to go after AOC with money is the strategy that plays out, she’ll destroy them. It won’t be close. Every dollar spent will literally have the opposite effect. They can’t beat her with money. They need to hit doorbells.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Is Beto’s campaign already crumbling?

Published

on

Is Betos campaign already crumbling

Yes. Yes it is.

You won’t see any in mainstream media talking about it, not because they’re all trying to hide the reality (though some are) but because they probably haven’t noticed. This isn’t an analysis of what we’re seeing. The proof of Beto O’Rourke’s campaign demise can be seen in what’s absence.

Betomania isn’t taking hold as many (including me) predicted. He was actually getting more attention and interest from mainstream media before he officially announced his candidacy. Now, he’s struggling to get positive headlines. Even neutral stories, such as a pair of campaign aides leaving but still volunteering for the campaign, is being positioned in a negative light. The Hill’s headline was truthful and not spun, something they’re not known to do with headlines about candidates. Instead, it’s “Key aides leave O’Rourke’s campaign: report.”

Another story that’s making its rounds is his use of lobbyist campaign contributions. A favored candidate would get a plethora of headlines excusing this action with whataboutisms and claims of nothingburgers, bug so far, nothing. “O’Rourke faces question about acceptance of lobbyist money” is the type of headline we’re seeing.

In fact, we’re even seeing some negative opinion pieces coming from leftist publications. Radical progressive site Mother Jones didn’t take kindly to O’Rourke’s claims that his lack of charitable giving was due to him giving himself to the people.

So, where’s the Betomania we were promised? Some of it is being sucked away by a concerted effort underway by some progressive groups who really, really want a woman to be at the top of the ticket, and not Hillary Clinton. With Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand all having favorable genders to some of these groups than someone like O’Rourke, the need to chop him down is important if they’re going to have a chance against the two old white guys, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders.

But the primary reason Beto is flailing for attention is because so much of it is going to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Like O’Rourke did with his 2018 Senate campaign, Buttigieg came out of nowhere to suddenly be rising in the polls and raising an unexpected amount of campaign funds. He’s also getting a sustained level of attention from the media as compared to O’Rourke’s hills and valleys.

Little by little, Buttigieg is getting attention from everyone on the left. He’s omnipresent in the media, which is very difficult considering the number and popularity of his competitors.

So far in April, he’s drawn many more searches on Google than O’Rourke. Most of this can be attributed to people simply not knowing who he is, but the consistency of his media dominance is worth noting.

Very few saw Scott Walker’s climb and sudden fall in 2015 during the early days of the GOP primary. He went from the frontrunner to pulling his name from contention seemingly overnight. Are we seeing the same with Beto O’Rourke?

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report