wmconelly and twclix made two great points… This is a Republican speaking as director of the FBI, so calling him a stooge for the left is a joke. The question that we should be asking is why the FBI, when finding no grounds for charges, is allowed to go into a personal attack against the individual in public? Is that really the big government conduct we want to sanction and set precedence for?.And Mr. Locke is offering an amazing lesson on revisionist history. It was the reactionary element of the conservative, slave-holding society that fueled the Civil War by demanding they hold all of the keys to power (see Dred Scott and court appointments, popular sovereignty, the editorials from southern newspapers, etc.)..The problem I have is that so many “conservatives” are willing to throw away key conservative legal principles to get Clinton. The idea of the director of the FBI being allowed to give personal commentary on someone who isn’t being charged with a crime, in a way that would bias any other legal proceeding to come, is reckless and dangerous. The idea of ditching mens rea as a fundamental legal tenet to make a case against Clinton would open the door for massive police power and government intrusion..And yet, no one seems to care..My problem is that “conservatives” are willing to trade in their values for the victory of the moment. What sense does that make?
wmconelly and twclix made two great points… This is a Republican speaking as director of the FBI, so calling him a stooge for the left is a joke. The question that we should be asking is why the FBI, when finding no grounds for charges, is allowed to go into a personal attack against the individual in public? Is that really the big government conduct we want to sanction and set precedence for?.And Mr. Locke is offering an amazing lesson on revisionist history. It was the reactionary element of the conservative, slave-holding society that fueled the Civil War by demanding they hold all of the keys to power (see Dred Scott and court appointments, popular sovereignty, the editorials from southern newspapers, etc.)..The problem I have is that so many “conservatives” are willing to throw away key conservative legal principles to get Clinton. The idea of the director of the FBI being allowed to give personal commentary on someone who isn’t being charged with a crime, in a way that would bias any other legal proceeding to come, is reckless and dangerous. The idea of ditching mens rea as a fundamental legal tenet to make a case against Clinton would open the door for massive police power and government intrusion..And yet, no one seems to care..My problem is that “conservatives” are willing to trade in their values for the victory of the moment. What sense does that make?