- CRITTER TALK
- NEWS I FIND INTERESTING
It should be amusing to listen to Alan ‘The Snake’ Derschowitz or Trump’s consiglieri John Dowd (who defies comparison to any fauna I can think of readily.) It should be — but it isn’t. Seems we’re back to the Nixon years when it was argued that if the president has a valid purpose behind his transgression of the law, it’s ipso facto legal. Or as Nietzsche would have said if he were a Republican:
“What’s done out of political expediency is beyond good and evil”
Only of course he didn’t, because it isn’t.
It doesn’t take a great mind like Nietzsche to understand that this is carte blanche to do anything a president damned well pleases. It doesn’t take much of a mind to see that this is the antitheses of where the law has been heading since the Magna Carta and is hardly a founding principle of American Democracy. But no, we’re “Ignorant and Arrogant” arrogates Mr. Dowd, esq. because a……
“…….president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [Article II of the Constitution] and has every right to express his view of any case.”
Enter the weasel. We’re not talking about expressing his view. We’re talking about obstructing or putting an end to a legal investigation of the president and associates by a law enforcement entity, not a comment. If this is legal, than anything Trump does is legal and the overwhelming conclusion is that we have a government of Trump, by Trump and for Trump, and Democracy has perished from the Earth.
Of course it’s not retroactive! Obama was not above the law – just ask J. Beauregard Sessions, nor was Bill Clinton as we were reminded ad nauseam, but don’t ask in public where anyone can hear it. Offending an absolute dictator is really not safe. Ask George Washington.