While I can certainly find fault with the IG final conclusions regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email, I can also respect the amount of restraint he places upon himself as an investigator. Certainly (especially in terms of investigations that have political undertones) some degree of deference is prudent. To the extent that we should desire an investigator to question the judgement of those assigned to provide it, the burden of proof should be fairly high.
In the case of an FBI investigation into a high ranking politician (especially a Presidential candidate), we are always going to have a fairly significant public opinion "split" as to whether or not an investigation is "fair". Some will argue (no matter what) that it wasn't broad enough, while others will argue (no matter what) that it went too far.
If we allow an investigator (such as an IG) the chance to "second guess" decisions on the basis of politics, that would likely open up a whole new can of worms that it obviously not needed in today's blazing hot partisan environment. In this case Horowitz was provided with a thankless task, and he knew for sure that he was going to be a pretty big goat to many Americans regardless of what he came back with.
But ultimately I think that is wise to provide the benefit of the doubt to those tasked to take on the responsibilities (sometime enormous responsibilities) of important and substantial jobs. Even as Horowitz admits that it's his "opinion" that bias resulted in some poor decision making, it is probably wise to not push for harsh penalties or criminal referrals for an opinion that (while it may seem obvious to many) lacks the sort of "smoking gun evidence" that will convince and ultimately appease everyone.
Moreover, if we get into the habit of second guessing those burdened with large responsibilities, then we could see ourselves marching closer and closer to that banana republic, where our Justice system is weighted substantial to those who have been elected into office, or otherwise supplied with the power. A system where our "politics" is placed above true justice.
The President of the United States has enormous responsibility and power. The President (like it or not) is also a politician with partisan beliefs, many of which can be argued is the reason why this particular person was elected. If we allow investigators to constantly second guess the decisions of the President, under the guise that these constitutionally granted powers can be seen as criminal, then we would truly be a banana republic.
When looking at people in positions of power, only actual criminal behavior should be punished. Legal behavior should only be questioned when the action is so obvious and so corrupt, as to be (to paraphrase I.G. Horowitz) literally indefensible. No single person (certainly not an investigator) should be given the power to "opine" whether or not a legal action is corrupt, based on his or her personal belief. They should find the smoking gun evidence, or leave their opinions about what "should have been done" to themselves.
Or perhaps they could run for office, so that they could have to power to make the decisions in a a manner that they believe is right. In a perfect world, they could do so without the threat of criminal investigations every time their decision doesn't sit well with others.
10 comments:
If decisions of the President, under the guise that these decisions are granted to the President by the Constitution that are not granted by the Constitution are not investigated for high crimes and misdemeanors we will have a banana republic dictatorship.
Simple decisions that are not contrary to the Constitution or are against the law are not being investigated. His campaign had contact with the Russians. He has been objecting justice since his first day in office. Although he has the right to fire the director of the FBI. His motivation was to obstruct the investigation into the Russian intervention in the election with the intent to beat Hillary Clinton.
You want a system where politics are above the law. If a politician like this President decides to do something he believes that the law cannot prohibit him from doing so he is in essence a dictator. Anything short of impeachment can stop the President from doing anything he wants. You're hiding this behind just simple politics. It's far more important Scott.
In a perfect world, they could do so without the threat of criminal investigations every time their decision doesn't sit well with others.
If Hillary Clinton had declared herself above the law and made decision you would have hated, you would have been apoplectic.
You still believe that "crooked Hillary" should be in prison.
Horowitz was absolutely correct in this report into the Clinton emails (scandal). A few words don't mean that the entire investigation was biased.
You still believe that "crooked Hillary" should be in prison.
And so does the entire trump base....the base without brains......Just think how many of his base still think obama is kenyan and a muslim....repeat, rinse, repeat is what trump does to manipulate the weak minded....
You still believe that "crooked Hillary" should be in prison.
Yes.
If a politician like this President decides to do something he believes that the law cannot prohibit him from doing so he is in essence a dictator
No Roger, this President of the United States can fire his employees and perform the same duties that every other President of United States has had authority to do...
That simply makes him a duly elected President (like all the rest). It doesn't make him a dictator anymore than any other President.
And for the first 44 Presidents, nobody ever suggested that you could "criminalize" their decision making because you don't agree with them, (or in this case) because you don't like him.
"If Hillary Clinton had declared herself above the law"
Which is exactly what she did when she deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails.
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?
You choose to ignore his statements and lies because you like him despite that he's the President.
Krauthammer said that he is not a conservative nor is he an honest person. Yet you sit back and believe that anyone who disagrees with Trump hates him. He's a clear and present danger to the United States.
He's a clear and present danger to the United States.
he is? how exactly, alky? please cite specifics.
thanks alky.
Post a Comment