RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/04/dojs_arrest_policies.html

When Merrick Garland was questioned about why excessive force was used in the arrest of Mark Houck, an anti-abortion activist who had offered to turn himself in, the Attorney General evaded responsibility for the policy by saying,

“The determinations of how to make arrests under arrest warrants are made based by the tactical operators in the district. They made the decision on the ground as to what was safest and easiest.”

Garland did not comment on the enormous expense of sending a SWAT team to arrest a father of seven.  Also not mentioned was the fact that this early morning raid tactic, first developed by the Soviet KGB, is frequently used to arrest non-violent targets.

Early morning or pre-dawn raids are designed for maximum humiliation and intimidation. Dozens of federal agents with automatic weapons, armored vehicles, and sometimes a helicopter and amphibious watercraft are used intimidate the target, as was the case with Roger Stone. In the raid on Thomas Caldwell’s home, Caldwell’s 61-year-old wife was covered in red dots from the weapons aimed at her. She begged to put on her socks before they forced her outside in the cold. Caldwell himself, clad only in his underwear, was dragged through the grass. James O’Keefe claims he was partially clothed in front of his neighbors when he was dragged out of his apartment.

The federal government has a constitutional right to arrest people for certain offenses. When it goes to enormous expense to arrest cooperating subjects, there is another motive to their actions. Intimidation and humiliation are not proper components of an arrest. There is also the factor that SWAT raids can go terribly wrong. Innocent people have been killed in their homes. The federal government has a history of heavy-handed attacks. It paid Randy Weaver $3.1 Million for the murder of this wife and son. There was also the Waco siege resulting in 75 deaths, including 25 children.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/americas_broken_windows.html

In criminology, the “broken windows” theory posits that visible signs of crime and civil disorder encourage only more serious crimes and antisocial behaviors.  A community that is perceived to permit vandalism, fare evasion, public intoxication, and petty theft will soon find that it must defend against rising rates of robbery, rape, and murder.  Tackling smaller forms of criminal mischief nips violent crimes in the bud.  Although Wyatt Earp and other Wild West lawmen put the theory into practice long before social scientists James Wilson and George Kelling wrote about it in the 1980s, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and police commissioner William Bratton popularized its use when they successfully implemented “broken windows” policies that saved New York City from a decades-long crime spiral.

Communist Mayor Bill de Blasio later framed “broken windows” policing as inherently racist, retreated from many sensible initiatives, and punished cops for proactively fighting crime.  The residents of NYC have subsequently paid the price with their deteriorating safety.

Such has been the much larger pattern throughout American society.  Cultural Marxists and other communist coalitions attack good and sound policies as racist, sexist, transphobic, or guilty of some other ugly -ic or -ist smear; those traditional standards of behavior are repudiated; and then Americans suffer the consequences of living in a society without norms, manners, or common decency.  Throwing bricks through America’s windows while blaming others for their crimes, leftists have spent the last century engaging in purposeful destruction so as to bring about America’s demise.  Throw a brick here; throw a brick there; eventually, Americans wake up in a nation where government tyrants nonchalantly lock up their political opponents, censorship is widespread, and young adults can no longer determine whether they are boys or girls.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/04/no-one-is-above-the-law-give-me-a-break/

Lock Donald Trump up, or don’t lock him up, but don’t tell me that “no one is above the law.” It’s one of the most ludicrous fantasies peddled by the left.

Plenty of people are “above the law.” James Clapper, who lied under oath to Congress about spying on the American people, is above the law. John Brennan, who lied about a domestic spying operation on Senate staffers, is above the law. Unlike Trump advisor Peter Navarro, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was never going to be handcuffed and thrown in prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena. He is above the law.

Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, is also above the law. The then-Secretary of State set up a private server in her home to circumvent transparency surrounding her slush-fund foundation. She sent 110 emails containing marked classified information, and 36 of those emails contained secret information. Eight of the email chains contained “top secret” information. Every one of those instances was a potential felony punishable with up to ten years in prison.

We learned all of this from James Comey, then FBI director, who noted that Hillary had been “extremely careless” in conducting her business. Comey didn’t recommend charges because, he claimed, the state couldn’t prove Clinton’s intent — even though “gross negligence,” not intent, was the only standard he needed. Gross negligence and extreme carelessness are synonyms. Comey concocted a new standard to protect Clinton because she is above the law.

When Hillary’s husband, also above the law, perjured himself under oath, Democrats argued that puritanical conservatives were only pursuing Bill because of some trumped-up charge over “sex.” Using that logic, Trump’s campaign finance charges related to Stormy Daniels’ “hush money” are also about sex. This is different because Trump is the boogeyman, and everyone knows he’s guilty of something. The important thing is getting that mug shot.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-political-prosecutions-are-common-south-america-brazil-mexico-venezuela-colombia-peru-supreme-court-trump-indictment-prosecution-931305ea?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

As Donald Trump faces indictment, many of his opponents are losing sight of a warning they issued in 2016. Then, Mr. Trump spoke of prosecuting Hillary Clinton and his supporters chanted “Lock her up!” Critics accused him of subverting a crucially important norm against political prosecution. They said that would be a dangerous turn, and they were right.

In much of Latin America, the use of the judicial apparatus as a means to sideline electoral opponents is part of the political culture. In a particularly egregious example, the autocratic Nicaraguan regime of Daniel Ortega arrested more than a dozen of his rivals just months before the November 2021 presidential election, many under treason charges created by a law Mr. Ortega’s government had enacted in December 2020.

Under international pressure—mainly from the U.S.—the regime released 222 political prisoners this February and had them flown to Washington. Under yet another treason law, however, they were stripped of their Nicaraguan citizenship and effectively expropriated.

Along with Nicaragua, political imprisonment is rampant in Latin America’s other full-blown autocracies, Venezuela and Cuba. These socialist regimes hold more than 250 and 750 dissidents, respectively, in arbitrary detention according to nongovernmental organizations Foro Penal and Justicia 11J. Like their sister regime in Managua, they often resort to the tactic of liberating political prisoners on specific occasions to obtain some short-term advantage.