Reaction to Donald Trump’s most celebrated comeback remark (now being tagged a “quip” by more than one) of “You’ll be in jail” to Hillary Clinton at last night’s debate seems to have grown a Hitler mustache, or something. But the entirety of the context of his declaration is lost in the emotion on both sides…
So, note to all you liberal Hillary synchophants freaking out, as Hillary prompted you to, Trump was not telegraphing a tin pot dictatorship to punish political opponents during his administration. No, he would be returning this nation’s legal system to fair and equal justice under the law. The Hillary email case is not closed by any legal stretch of the imagination. There are more emails to come. You see, everybody is still reeling from the very strong and undeniable case FBI director James Comey laid out months ago regarding Hillary Clinton and her emails … and then ended with “not recommending prosecution” to the DOJ’s Ag, who had physically met with Hillary’s husband for half an hour just a couple days before Comey’s decision.
Of course with all the millions Hillary has, and the billions on hand from George Soros (for one), and her baskets and buckets full of ‘favors to call-in’ it would be a walk-in-the-park for Hillary. Hell, it already has been with the current administration that doesn’t want implicated in being accomplices should she be indicted, and then exposed for covering for her in the investigation.
Yeah, what about “We The ‘Deplorables'” in Hillary Clinton’s world of selective justice? I mean, we have already seen what she’s done to victims of her husband and victims of child rape. And then there’s this…
Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit remarks about the aghast liberals over Trump’s “jail” remark:
“I’M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN DEMOCRATS THREATENED TO TRY W AS A WAR CRIMINAL AND “FROG MARCH” KARL ROVE TO PRISON…”
And when I woke up this morning to all this alarm over Trump’s much applauded one-liner in Hillary’s face my mind went to the poor filmmaker sap who was blamed for the four American deaths (straight in their families’ faces over their returned coffins) and was tossed in jail as a result. Instapundit was reminded as well:
Also, while we’re talking about banana republic stuff, note that while Trump made a threat, Hillary actually saw a filmmaker jailed in order to support a political narrative. I don’t recall The Economist speaking so strongly about that. . . .
That’s why it was so important for Trump to talk about jail time for his opponent. If things had not gotten to the point where former top officials well might belong in jail, Trump wouldn’t be there in the first place. The Republican voters chose a reckless, independently wealthy, vulgar, rough-edged outsider precisely because they believe that the system is corrupt. They are right to so believe; if the voters knew a tenth of what I know about it, they would march on Washington with pitchforks.
The Obama Justice Department’s ‘investigation’ of Hillary Clinton was the real banana-republic event. One of the sillier post-debate comments comes from Nicholas Burns of Harvard’s Kennedy School, who tweeted: “Threatening to jail a political opponent is anti-democratic and anti-American.” Donald Trump did memorably say that Hillary Clinton “would be in jail” if he were president; but what he actually vowed to do was appoint a “special prosecutor” to look into Mrs. Clinton’s “situation” — by which he was obviously referring to the e-mail scandal.
This is manifestly not a case of banana-republic criminalization of politics. Trump was not threatening to go after Clinton because she has the temerity to oppose him politically. He was committing to have a special prosecutor investigate Clinton for mishandling classified information, destroying government files, and obstruction of justice — criminal misconduct that has nothing to do with being a political adversary of Trump’s, and for which others who commit similar felonies go to jail.
The Obama administration investigated Mrs. Clinton, at least ostensibly, for over a year. Is Professor Burns saying a politician should only be investigated by her political allies and may otherwise violate the law with impunity? […]
And it doesn’t look to be stopping there at blaming and punishing others for their actions, or inaction. It is a great probability that even worse will be done to those of us who refuse to believe in the biggest hoax ever inflicted on this planet’s civilization:
Gawker (not linking … Google it): “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers”