13 thoughts on “The Tax Record Scandal”

1. They are the very definition of tyrants. Selective enforcement of law is not equal justice, blind or any semblance of rule of law.

   1. Every prosecutor’s office that has ever existed has pursued some cases and not others.

      1. As is often the case, what you write is both true and irrelevant to the post.

         1. “As is often the case, what you write is both true and irrelevant to the post.”

            Simply Baghdad Jim’s attempt at demonstrating gravitas.

      2. A good prosecutor’s office selects cases by the quality of available evidence. Here we have cases being selected for political expediency, which appears to be the norm for the current department of (In)Justice.

      3. When cases don’t get prosecuted for obviously political reasons, that’s generally considered a bad thing.

      4. Every prosecutor’s office that has ever existed has pursued some cases and not others.

         Isn’t this the same DoJ that has spent 4 years looking for leakers to prosecute? Looks like they have found a leak!

      5. I didn’t qualify ‘Selective enforcement’ since I thought the context was enough. Without that qualification you are technically correct Jim. But others have qualified that for me.

         Jim, taking your comment to the extreme means that rule of law is impossible. Again, I’d have to agree with you in the extreme sense… However, we’ve had about a hundred years where it worked pretty well. Not perfectly, but seriously better than the current tyranny.

2. Isn’t what the DOJ doing treason?
   And just what are you going to do about that?

   1. Isn’t what the DOJ doing treason?

      No. It’s lawless, and potentially impeachable, but apparently you’re unfamiliar with the meaning of the word “treason.”

      And just what are you going to do about that?

      What a bizarre question. When did I get either the responsibility or the authority to do anything about it, even if it were treasonous?

   2. From the US Constitution:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
      The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

      A deliberately narrow definition, in reaction to the charge of treason being widely abused by the Brittish government not long before broken away from.

      But I suspect DO(I)J personnel have commited crimes chargeable if honest persons came into executive office.

3. We’re way past the point where a special prosecutor is needed. Congress needs to push this issue.

4. Wasn’t it Jim, or someone else maybe, saying that if something illegal happened that the DOJ would bring charges and that if there were no charges then there was no crime?

   Here we know there was a crime and logs to show who committed it but why no prosecution? Should we have faith that the DOJ will act on other illegal acts of persecution against political dissidents at the IRS, EPA, and FBI?

   Not persecuting shows an acceptance and approval of the behavior. Similar to the lack of punishment for those at the IRS or even stopping the persecution which is ongoing. After Obama and the DOJ learn of these behaviors then do nothing to prevent them from continuing shows acceptance and approval, which is just as wrong as ordering the acts in the first place. Wait, I am sorry, Obama and the DOJ did do something. They covered up the wrongdoing, the best way to hold people accountable and see that bad behavior doesn’t continue.

Comments are closed.