A Note To Dems’ Script Writers

One thing stuck in my craw for the duration of the Washingtonian malfeasance is a simple phrase all too common now. Widely and wildly misused. It is more a defense and deflection of the Swamp than an indictment of it.

That phrase is some form of: “we should not criminalize politics” or our political process. Alan Dershowitz popularized it but many used it. It’s now an institutional euphemism.

The original intended beneficiary of the phrase was foremost to be Hillary Clinton. But it was applied in defending Obama too. It may now legitimately be used defending Trump. Though those three instances are apples and oranges. True, they try to criminalize everything Trump does. It has been normalized. Let’s deal with Hillary and Obama.

I resent something called what it is not. In Hillary’s case, it is as a complete misdescription of events. Hillary started her job as Secretary of State in 2009, after lying about creating a wall between the Foundation with her name on it. That conflict was to be expunged, but never was. She knew it, Bill knew it, her top advisors knew it. All were aware how she would use the job as Sec of State. That was the whole point in her taking the job.

She engaged in criminal conduct from the onset.

The crux is even deeper. She began by setting up an illegal server from the start. She never used a State email. Her advisors knew it. She did it to circumvent FOIA and public accountability. The whole purpose by design was to obstruct justice. That was her goal.

The act came first, meaning her job duties were subordinate to political considerations. However, her actions were criminal from the beginning. She was not compliant with the law from the git-go.

Now we are lectured that we the people should not criminalize our political process. Really?

State was politicized too, not just by her. Obama deliberately did not install an Inspector General at State for Hillary. It only had an existing, “acting” temporary (placeholder) office. Politicized and weaponized as was nearly every other department, like Justice.

We now know that in the 2016 campaign, Hillary was taking money from foreign sources. We also know what she was doing with Russians, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Crowd Strike, Ukrainians, an agent of a foreign government, creating a dossier, pedaling it to our intelligence community and co-opting our executive branch. Using existing politicization and further weaponizing intelligence, collaborating with Obama and his administration.

Does all that sound like legitimate, legal campaign conduct — which is being criminalized?

So the point is Hillary and Obama’s criminal deeds criminalized our political process. But we are criminalizing politics by wanting accountability? Not to forget how they weaponized government against the people, interfered with elections and later staged a coup.

But the real source of the whole problem was that Trump beat Hillary in her dirty, illegal game — politics. He was also running against an abuse of power and obstruction of justice. They are now trying to criminalize the very politics that beat them.

Don’t cry to me about people criminalizing routine political conduct and election process. None of Democrats’ was routine. People who stage coups have no credibility.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Politicization of Government

Hello, class, today our 8th-grade social studies continues our series on ‘the politicization of our government.’ For review: we already discussed particular areas in past lessons from EPA to the Justice Department, to the border control, to the IRS, to enforcing the laws just to name a few topics. You can review your notes on them.

Today we will look at just how politicized this all has become. So there was a letter by 50 former Republican officials that worked in various places in administrations. They all agreed to sign this public letter condemning the Republican nominee in this election, as unsuited for the office of President. They say they will not vote for Trump. Many were from national security or homeland security. Experts in their own minds all. They have decades of combined government or bureaucracy experience applying those government credentials to their political opinions.

Before this, a few other individuals also spoke out to condemn this nominee. We can add a former CIA director, Mike Morell, taking a political stand in support of Hillary to the list. It seems fashionable at first. But when you look closer there is something more going on.

They criticized Donald Trump for not having the proper temperament. But it should be noted they have not joined forces in their criticism before with the last Presidents or nominees. So this seems to be a another step in this politicization process. You can all read their letter for homework but I’m talking about the general emphasis. They are mostly criticizing Trump’s character. So that is standard fare now, but it is on the level today we haven’t seen before.

I suppose an extra thing to note is they are very proud of it. This is personal criticism or attacks on character and psychoanalysis. It looks like a cover for various political dissent. So you could see it as partisan political difference but again, it’s more.

We’ve seen that Obama politicized almost every area of government. These national security officials have anted up and then raised him by 50 votes. So it is not just one side of the political isle. The common denominator seems to be their time and experience in government coupled with an unanchored ability to delve into politics, using their experience and recognition, to take a public political position. Finally, to lampoon a nominee as unqualified and unfit for the office. Scale it up to organized groups in opposition.

The other thing worth noting, even though they all have political disagreements with him, is Trump does not appear to be an ideologue driven by partisan politics. In fact, what seems to irritate his opposition is he has been vocal in criticizing both Republicans and Democrats — though establishment in both. What we seem to have is an insurgent candidate who represents a threat to both sides of the establishment coin. Both sides are bent out of shape. This election is flushing out establishment from the others.

And that establishment class in Washington is not happy about these winds of change. It represents a threat, in some cases, to everything they have built their career around. Now we are seeing what they do, lash out at it. In this unfolding process, I think we’ve now seen just how political these people can be. This only dovetails with regular institutional politicization of Obama down through virtually all parts of the administration to his political, ideological agenda. They are proud of it.

Class dismissed. Next time, what happens if they lose?

RightRing | Bullright