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?

Continue Reading
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

Stacey Abrams doesn’t concede in her non-concession speech

Published

on

Stacey Abrams doesn't concede in her non-concession speech

Republican Brian Kemp will be the next governor of Georgia. He defeated Democrat Stacey Abrams by receiving 50.2% of the vote, negating the possibility of a runoff election.

Abrams isn’t happy about it. She said today she’s unwilling to concede but acknowledged that Kemp would be certified as the winner. In a strange political doublespeak way, she fought back against a system that prevented her from rightfully winning.

Or something.

Bottom line: She lost. She, President Obama, and Oprah Winfrey failed to get her enough voters to win the election. Whether she actually concedes or not is irrelevant.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kamala Harris pushes fraudulent ‘petition’ to build her 2020 fundraising spam list

Published

on

The worlds of marketing and political campaigning have many things in common. Their intention is to persuade people. They’re both selling something. They employ tested colors, designs, and buzzwords to get people excited. One of the keys to their success is something called “list-building.”

With ballots from the 2018 elections still being counted, Senator Kamala Harris is wasting no time building her 2020 list. To do it, she’s employing a deceptive technique, promoting an online “petition” that’s really nothing more than a way to get people to willingly give her campaign their contact information. These people will be targeted with campaign fundraisers later.

No official announcement has been made about her 2020 presidential run, but it’s hard to believe she’s not running after purchasing 1,100 Facebook ads to promote these “petitions.” A Facebook ad doesn’t have a set cost, but we can assume big money is being put into these list-building ads because of the sheer volume. To put it into perspective, Beto O’Rourke spent around $5 million on Facebook ads for his Senate campaign. Presidential campaigns can easily spend 25 times as much as an expensive Senate campaign.

Unlike a valid petition people often sign to get a candidate or proposition on a ballot, these list-building petitions don’t actually do anything. People are told they’re demanding this action or that, but in the end they’re just giving over information. Some go so far as to ask for everything, including name, address, phone numbers, email, and occasionally even income. These lists grow much more slowly because of the depth of the information requested.

A more common technique is to ask for minimal data to encourage people to fill it out. At the end of the day, all a campaign really needs is an email address they can later use in fundraising campaigns. Here’s an example of an ad Senator Harris’ campaign recently put out:

Kamala Harris Petition

The meta data reveals the page was titled, “Acquisition: 180822 Mueller FB.”

“FB” means it was a Facebook campaign. “Mueller” was the topic. “180822” is the tracking number for A/B testing. “Acquisition” is the goal. Anyone who signed this “petition” has just had their contact information acquired. Mission accomplished. They will soon be receiving emails asking them to donate to the Kamala Harris 2020 presidential election fund.

As for the results of the “petition,” they will go nowhere. There won’t be a Congressional action that is enabled by the thousands of people who “signed” it. You won’t see Kamala Harris standing in front of the White House reading off the names of the people who participated in the “petition.” She couldn’t do that even if she wanted to because the “petition” only asks for a first name. Are there really people out there who believe signing a petition only requires a first name?

Senator Harris is promoting fraudulent petitions with the sole purpose if building her 2020 fundraising spam list. Anyone who “signs” it believing they’re demanding protection for Robert Mueller is a sucker. That’s exactly who she wants to target.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Nancy Pelosi blames misogyny for Democrats opposing her as Speaker

Published

on

Nancy Pelosi blames misogyny for Democrats opposing her as Speaker

Nancy Pelosi believes she’ll be Speaker of the House again. Her caucus controls the vote. She was Speaker before. Most Democrats support her. Most.

A vocal group of 17 (and counting) Democrats in Congress have declared they will not support her for Speaker of the House. Though no official challenge has stepped up, there are speculations that a younger, more progressive Democrat will emerge. Given the state of the party and the shift to the left, it’s very possible her path to the gavel will be bumpy.

Predictably, Pelosi is blaming her challenges on misogyny. It’s the patriarchy WITHIN the Democratic Party that is allegedly keeping her down. Because, well, of course that’s the reason. It’s always the reason.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report