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 *

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Culture and Religion

The complete fraud that is socialism

Published

on

By

The complete fraud that is socialism

Once again we are witness to the age-old scam of socialism with Leftists making promises to attain power that can never be fulfilled.

Long before Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago exposed the systematic oppression, torture, incarceration and deliberate mass murder that are the hallmarks of socialistic slavery. James A. Michener documented the 1956 Hungarian uprising against communism in his book ‘The Bridge at Andau’. While both are great literary works, ‘The Bridge at Andau’ laid bare the complete fraud that is the collectivist ideologies in creating a ‘Heaven on Earth’ or ‘worker’s paradise’ that never comes to fruition.

The selling of socialistic slavery to a new generation tends to follow a certain type of ‘progress’. Promises are made for all kinds of largess ranging from Free Healthcare, Free Housing, Free College, Free food to even Free income. All paid for with other people’s money. Never mind that It’s impossible to fulfill all of these wondrous asseverations. Appearances must be made to at least begin the process, so the ever-present task of wealth redistribution begins at the point of a gun.

This is also why the Socialist-Left obsesses over gun confiscation and the suppression of free speech. It is imperative for the Leftists to disarm the people since they generally object to having their property stolen from them. However, we are getting ahead of ourselves, this is to document how this exploitation of the people has ‘progressed’ in other collectivist enclaves to better understand how this crime against the people is perpetrated.

Why do collectivist regimes always require secret police apparatus and the suppression of Liberty?

This question was detailed in The Bridge at Andau in the chapters on the ‘AVO man’. In which he discusses the secret police organisation of the Hungarian Communists, the AVO (Allamvedelmi Osztaly). He bluntly asked and answered the question:

Why must communism depend on such dregs of society?

No matter on what elevated plane communism begins its program of total dictatorship. it sooner or later runs into such economic and social problems that some strong-arm force is required to keep the civil population under control.

As is the case now as it was then, a nation’s Socialist-Left will promise just about anything to attain power over the people:

When communism is wooing the workers in Csepel, all kinds of exaggerated promises are made if they seem likely to awaken men’s aspirations and their cupidity. These promises are couched in such simple terms and such effective symbols that they become immediate goals of the revolution.

Review briefly what communist agitators had once promised the Hungarians who appear in this book: consumer goods such as they had never known before, increased wages. increased social benefits, shorter hours of work, improved education for everyone, a greater social freedom, and a government directly responsible to the working classes. Under communism such promises were never even remotely capable of attainment.

[Our Emphasis]
If all of that sounds eerily familiar, it’s because that’s part of a very old song and dance that has deceived many a generation into enslaving themselves under socialism. Consider this recent story from the Associated Press:

Democrats lurch left on top policies as 2020 primary begins

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic presidential contender Julian Castro launched his campaign by pledging support for “Medicare for All,” free universal preschool, a large public investment in renewable energy and two years of free college for all Americans.
….

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who is expected to launch his presidential campaign soon, has sponsored legislation to create a federal jobs guarantee program in several communities across America.

The pilot program… could ultimately transform the U.S. labor market by providing well-paid government employment with benefits for anyone who wants it.

[Our Emphasis]

As Margaret Thatcher so aptly surmised, eventually they will run out of other people’s money. In our case in the states, that is already the situation given the enormous debt and unfunded liabilities reaching into the stratosphere of trillions of dollars. Of course, this hasn’t deterred committed collectivists such as Democratic mayor Bill de Blasio who recently stated that ‘There’s plenty of money in the world… It’s just in the wrong hands!’ Never mind that it is morally wrong to steal the property of others or that once a society turns down the dead-end of socialism there will always be more people wanting more money from those who have it.

Wealth redistribution scams will always wreck the economy. A socialist regime that nationalizes the economy can never function better than one of economic Liberty. Soon enough everything breaks down, the people see through the lies and the government has to start breaking heads. Thus it is imperative that they have previously confiscated the people’s guns and made it illegal to defend themselves.

The Takeaway

Socialistic schemes always run contrary to basic human nature. Rewarding someone for not working will always result in less work. Conversely, punishing someone for working will also result in less work.

This basic logic of human nature seems to be lost on Leftists. But perhaps it is not. They have to know their schemes have never and will never work. And yet they still try to impose them on everyone else. Perhaps they know of the epic fraud they are continually perpetrating on society, but they don’t care. That will be the subject of our next installment.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Dan Crenshaw: Only six Democrats voted to pay federal employees affected by shutdown

Published

on

Dan Crenshaw Only six Democrats voted to pay federal employees affected by shutdown

While most were drinking the mainstream media Kool-Aid that Republicans and President Trump are responsible for keeping paychecks out of the hands of federal employees affected by the government shutdown, a bill was brought to the House floor that would have paid them their first paycheck of 2019.

It failed. Despite six Democrats voting in favor of the bill, the Democratic majority shot it down, preventing their political pawns – the 800,000 people directly affected by the government shutdown – from getting paid.

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) pointed it out and received a good amount of interactions on Twitter, but most in mainstream media refused to run this narrative-busting truth.

It’s crystal clear to anyone paying attention that their anti-wall rhetoric is driven by the good optics they’re getting from the press. If the people would stop being sheep and listen to that quiet voice of reason in the back of their minds, they’d realize two things:

  1. Democrats don’t oppose the wall. They oppose giving the President a win. They will keep the government shutdown going as long as possible and any attempts to help the people affected by it will be shot down.
  2. All of the false claims about the wall are politically motivated outside of the realm of common sense. The latest talking point, that the wall will be ineffective, is contradicted by every statistic that compares illegal immigration with or without a wall.

This is clear proof the Democrats have no desire to help the people if it means taking away their leverage on the President. Given the choice between paying federal employees or harming the President politically, they chose political expediency.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Democrats

To understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we must look at her worldview

Published

on

To understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we must look at her worldview

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has baffled people on both sides of the political aisle since her meteoric rise began. She has an uncanny ability to say silly things and get away with it, at least when her mainstream media handlers control the situation.

One quote she made during her political campaign caught many people by surprise because it was so blatantly wrong, even left-leaning PolitiFact had to rate it as “Pants on Fire!”

“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.”

This is either a bald-faced lie or it’s a reflection of her backwards worldview. I’m going with the latter. After watching her speak and how she responds to questions, I don’t believe she’s some political mastermind who is manipulating the Democratic world to bend at her will. I think she sincerely believes the falsehoods she’s peddling.

Does she think the world is going to end in 12 years? Yes. Does she believe we’ll “just pay for” the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All? Yes. Does she think unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs? Yes. Her ignorance would be adorable if it weren’t so dangerous.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report