Almost everyone that is against undocumented immigrants argues that the “rule of law” is paramount to the debate. To them, it doesn’t matter whether the law is just or complete or even enforceable because “illegal immigrants” must be deported or jailed because the “rule of law” is black and white. “They broke the law” is the collective narrative. Donald Trump has been on a tirade about the Mueller investigation, labelling it a “witch hunt” and arguing that laws were broken and thus the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is invalid.
Whether laws were broken, or processes were abused by the launch of the Mueller investigation, or whether a “spy,” or spies were planted in the Trump campaign is a debate for another time. For now, let’s accept that processes and even laws were circumvented in launching the Mueller investigation. Accepting these as the premise of today’s post, let’s look at where it leaves us.
The Mueller investigation has resulted in five guilty pleas. Five individuals have pleaded guilty to crimes because of the Mueller investigation so far. If we are to accept that the “rule of law” must be paramount then we need to accept that the guilty pleas, under oath, mean that five individuals stood before a judge and stated that they were “not threatened,” or “forced” to plead guilty to the charges, and are “pleading guilty” to the charges. Thus, the five individuals; Michael Flynn, Richard Gates, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo and Alex van der Zwann, are guilty of the crimes they pleaded guilty to.
That is the only definition of the “rule of law” that is valid.
It is true that none of the guilty pleas implicate Donald Trump, or his campaign. But that distinction is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the Mueller investigation has resulted in five guilty pleas for federal crimes.
Thus, the question is, why do Donald Trump and cohorts argue that it is a “witch hunt”? Why lay the foundation that the Mueller investigation is improper?
Does the “rule of law” not require that anyone that breaks a law be held to account, not withstanding the way the crime was discovered?
Remember that many undocumented immigrants are prosecuted for being in the country illegally after being discovered via racial profiling or dubious stops for “speaking Spanish,” or driving on I-10 through an inner border check point. How the undocumented status was detected is immaterial to those who demand that “immigrants follow the law”.
Under this argument, then why is it ok to call the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt” but not referring to draconian immigration enforcement laws that separate children from immigrants or profile people for “speaking Spanish” as a “white-supremacist” attempt to impose a White America?
Why is the “rule of law” only valid for targeting immigrants with hatred but not valid for labeling the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt”.
It is a simple question that deserves a simple answer.
For the same reason that millions of Mexicans think they can just invite themselves into the USA.
Martin
Fact is the U.S. enforcement of immigrations laws is down right liberal to most the rest of the world and are far more liberal than even Mexico’s truly draconian immigration laws.
Martin you are no very good at carrying propaganda!
Simply put:
Why is the ‘country of laws’ being a ‘country of laws’ when it is hunting down undocumented immigrants by any means necessary but said ‘country of laws’ is witch hunting when investigating a suspected criminal circle bossed by trompas?
Hint: It has nothing to do with Mexico, Mexicans, other non-white people or Muslims.
Pati
Can help you out because our constitution has made it unlawful for bureaucrats to act int the interest of a political party to subvert an election as the DNC and it’s bureaucrat supporters have been clearly shown to have done.
Next if if someone in government believes someone may have committed a crime and it is based just on their opinion, no hard proof, our constitution has clearly stated for an agency of law enforce to go on a fish expedition, to make such a case, is unconstitutional which is pretty clear happened in the current on going investigation of Trump..
Pati what is even more important is the American people need to know all of the others who were running for president that surveillance was being conducted against. In addition what grounds were given to FISA courts to grant warrants to conduct such surveillance! It is publicly known Rand Paul thought in was under surveillance. What people like you do not get is if it is found that surveillance was only conducted on those the Bureaucrats ,who where supporting Hillary and the DNC, thought were a threat to Hillary being elected then the ca ca is going to hit the fan.
This is what the Washington beltway elite and the bureaucrats are trying to avoid the American people knowing right now.
So using your thinking what is the left and the Democrats so afraid of in finding out if the FBI,CIA and other agencies in government did things, in gaining warrants and doing investigations, that were criminal and unconstitutional.
Pati if you and others on the left are so sure everything was above board and legal what do you have to be afraid of if no crimes have been committed?