Investigations and the Rule of Law

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Dan Z »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Dan Z wrote: I'm curious about what you base this statement on.

In light of events during the Obama Administration (The IRS "Tea Party" scandal) and Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state (Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, Uranium One) do these same "non-partisans and moderates" also see accusations of active FBI/DOJ bias and the investigations of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as credible?
Boot answered well Wayne. Moderates and independents have relative confidence in the process, and have accepted the results of the oversight and investigations into the scandals you mentioned. It is the anti-establishment types that keep digging up bones.

I have no doubt these middle folks will do the same with the Muller conclusions - provided the process is allowed to run its course in the legally prescribed manner and without obstruction (a tall order from the looks of it :( ). The American system of governance and checks and balances has served well (not perfectly) for over 24 decades now. I say trust the legal system, and let the chips fall where they are meant to fall.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Neither you nor Boot answered my question: I'm curious about what you base this statement on.
To which I will add: Who are these non-partisans and moderates? I consider myself non-partisan and I am astonished (frightened really) at some of the things that were swept under the rug during the Obama administration.
What can I say...I read a lot. :)

A good percentage of moderate conservative columnists would fall into the category I believe, including Brooks, Douthat, Frum, Gerson, Will, etc. Of course, moderate Democrats would as well, plus would most independents according to polling.

Regarding Republicans, here are some quotes I've pulled together for your edification:
  • Charlie Dent (R-PA) - “Most of my republican colleagues feel as I do that we have confidence in law enforcement. I don’t know why that would change now that we have a republican administration”
    Thomas Rooney (R-FL) - “[Attacks on Muller] are political cheap shots that sound good on Fox News, but in the real world are completely unfair to a guy who has given his life to serving this country.”
    Marco Rubio (R-FL) - “I think that the best thing that can happen for the President, for the country, for everyone is that [Mueller] be allow to complete his investigation as thoroughly and that we allow the facts from that investigation to lead where they may.”
    Peter King (R- NY) - “You can’t have a situation where people say ‘Oh, you can’t trust the F.B.I.’ That creates a spirit of anarchy”
    Cory Gardner (R - CO) - “We should allow Director Mueller to continue to do his job.”
    Luther Strange (R- AL) - “He’s doing, a fine job, Mueller is. I have a lot of confidence in him.”
    Richard Shelby (R-AL) - “My basic philosophy is, once you have an independent counsel, you ought to give him a chance to follow the facts. If somebody’s doing a job, you don’t want to cut it off.”
    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) - “I am pleased with the appointment of Robert Mueller, an individual of uncompromising integrity…this is a positive step towards restoring the public’s trust.”
    Johnny Isakson (R-GA) - “[Mueller’s] been appointed for a purpose, let him carry that purpose out, and let the evidence take us where it may,”
    Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - “As always, it’s important to let our legal system run its course. While we don’t have any more information regarding the current status of the special counsel’s investigation other than what has already been made public, it’s good to see the Justice Department taking seriously its responsibility to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
    Joni Ernst (R-IA) - “It’s important that we let the Special Counsel and bipartisan congressional investigations continue in earnest.”
    John Kennedy (R-LA) - “I don’t want to deny the Justice Department or special counsel resources they need… Now I don’t want to see them just go hog wild and waste money either. But I don’t want to try to do anything to hurt their effort.”
    Ben Sasse (R-NE) – Robert Muller is an honorable man and a true public servant.”
    Thom Tillis (R-NC) - “I want to make it clear that this [bill to protect Muller from firing] is something I’m looking to get back into the purview of the Senate. This isn’t just about this special counsel. It’s for all other future special counsels.”
    James Lankford (R-OK) - “He’s doing the job he’s been asked by the American people to do. He should stay at it and finish it.”
    Tim Scott (R-SC) “The American people deserve the truth, wherever it lies,”
    John Thune (R-SD) – “[Mueller] is a man of integrity … and he needs to be able to do his work. And I think it’s better for all of us if that work continues. Obviouslt he is going to get to the bottom and he is going to find the facts, and I think that’s his role. And I think we ought to let him continue to do that and I assume at some point there will be an end to all this. He’ll have done his investigation and there will be whatever findings there are.”
    Mike Rounds (R-SD) - “No. [Mueller] should not be fired. Straightforward. This is a special counsel. He has a job to do. Let him do his job.”
    Mike Lee (R-UT) - “I fully support Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s continuing investigation and I’ll do everything I can to make sure that the system of checks and balances, the system of separation of powers in the federal government, is upheld.”
0 x
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by joshuabgood »

Dan Z wrote:
Josh wrote:I’m surprised at the degree of American exceptionalism displayed here. I don’t think a legacy of slavery and abortion is “working well”.
I wouldn't want to slap the label of "exceptionalism" on what I said (especially it's "manifest destiny" connotations) - but I do think the "American experiment" has proven itself a worthy model of governance relative to other societies.

I'm talking about polity here not policy. No question there have been decisions that have been made along that way that, looking back, have come down on the wrong side of morality. But when it comes to the ordering of society, representation, checks and balances, justice, and due process, American constitutional government has historically held up better than most.
This is where I probably get off the boat I do think the "American experiment" has proven itself a worthy model of governance relative to other societies. That is in essence American Exceptionalism in my view. I would question the degree to which the history lines up that well with this idea either when you consider the grand scheme of things as Josh mentioned. If one looks at the genocide of American Indians, African enslavement, one of the bloodiest Civil Wars in history, a history of Imperial conquest, the only country that nuked another, 53 million baby holocaust...it is really hard to convince me that we are a "worthy model." And these are just a few of the metanarratives surrounding this country. Yes it has been good for segments of the population to be sure, but so are all regimes. I would argue the USA is nothing more than another pagan government built on violence and threats of violence to protect the power of those in control. They are fundamentally and principally built and operated the same way, and they are controlled by the prince of this world.

The western story of "progress" is, in my mind, just myth. The whole liberal construct of polity, flowing out of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Smith, et al is I think demonstrably malarkey as the 20th century so ably demonstrates. (And the Great War - was the beginning of the end of modern liberalism probably.) In fact,one can argue plausibly methinks, that the very entire "nation-state" construct seems questionable. Increased centralization is has led to social tragedy on an unheard of scale.

I'd say we best let folks know that their is another kingdom that is worthy, and there is only one kingdom.=)
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Dan Z »

Always good input JBG - I suppose the statement "relative to other societies" is itself relative.

Governance of "Adam's fallen race" is certainly messy business - with incremental and halting successes shown amidst some otherwise dismal moral decisions. I suspect I'm not as cynical as you are regarding the human social estate (but I'll also admit to being one of the segment of the population who has benefited from what this country has provided). Despite the headlines, I think there are a number empirical data points showing the world, at the macro level, is trending toward a more just and equitable and less violent direction (See Steven Pinker's research in The Better Angels of Our Nature). I honestly believe there is something to MLK's "moral arc of the universe" observation - but I recognize that many still get the short-end of the justice stick.

That being said - ultimately I put my hope where you do, and I'll stand with you in the conviction that "I'd say we best let folks know that their is another kingdom that is worthy, and there is only one kingdom."
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:
Can you explain your question? Provide a little more detail?
Is it possible to be involved in the political process and not have a bias against the opposition party?
Yes, I think so. But not if you call it "the opposition party". We have a two party system, it's supposed to represent more than one point of view. So in an investigation, for instance, you look at the facts of the case, not whether it is "your guy" or "their guy". For me, that also means not joining political parties or giving to campaigns and being skeptical of media sources that I see as strongly partisan. But I do vote.

And to be blunt, there are clearly people who do not vote, but strongly identify with one of the partisan sides and don't seem to question the "facts" presented by their own favorite partisan media. From what I've seen, I'm just not convinced that "not voting" means "not partisan".

To the most partisan people, of course, all truth is on their side, and anyone who disagrees is irrational and highly partisan to the other side. That's a tell-tale sign. And of course, partisanship is always focused on the struggle between the two sides, not on establishing what is known based on the facts or looking for a fair process to do an investigation.
GaryK wrote:Probably everyone involved in the political process feels they can be objective when observing all that is currently happening but the very nature of politics makes it nigh to impossible. The hypocrisy of politics never ceases to amaze me regardless who is in power. I sincerely doubt there has ever been an investigation of someone politically elected that has been free of political bias.
Free of bias? No, but there can be trials that listen to all of the biased sides in a fair way. By the end of the process, I think Watergate was a wonderful example of bipartisan cooperation to seek a fair outcome. And politics was much cleaner and more cooperative for a while after that.
GaryK wrote:Followers of Jesus function best when they choose to be involved only in the Kingdom of all kingdoms. Not saying we shouldn't be observant and watchful but I'm not confidant one can have a foot in both kingdoms and be free from the ugliness of politics.
Are you saying one should not vote, or that one should not have opinions, or what? To me, the ugliest part of politics is not what happens in the voting booth.
One cannot choose to be a part of the political process and then not be complicit in its ugliness. Politics has always been ugly. It's part and parcel of the other kingdom.

I agree that one can be partisan and never vote. But I also believe that simply choosing not to join one of the two political parties doesn't automatically make one non-partisan. If there is a vote for a particular candidate one becomes party to that person's politics.
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by MattY »

Dan Z wrote:
Josh wrote:I’m surprised at the degree of American exceptionalism displayed here. I don’t think a legacy of slavery and abortion is “working well”.
I wouldn't want to slap the label of "exceptionalism" on what I said (especially it's "manifest destiny" connotations) - but I do think the "American experiment" has proven itself a worthy model of governance relative to other societies.

I'm talking about polity here not policy. No question there have been decisions that have been made along that way that, looking back, have come down on the wrong side of morality. But when it comes to the ordering of society, representation, checks and balances, justice, and due process, American constitutional government has historically held up better than most.
As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

The American experiment hasn't yet lasted as long as the Roman Republic, although it has arguably lasted longer than the Athenian democracy, depending on how the latter's beginning and ending dates are chosen. I'd consider it superior to both, but I'm biased in favor of what I know.

Abortion, and slavery, and other evils in American history are due to the failings of the human heart and have been found everywhere. The Declaration of Independence famously says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Part of the history of America is the struggle to make the reality line up with the values and ideals of that statement. The evils of slavery and abortion are both stains on American history, but slavery has been outlawed and everyone in the mainstream political scene agrees with MLK's dream - that his children would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Hopefully abortion will go the same way. But human institutions and societies tend to corrupt and decline with time, so perhaps abortion will be America's downfall.

World magazine today posted an interesting article on writer and intellectual Ta-nehisi Coates and his worldview, comparing him to Martin Luther King. Coates, as an atheist, does not hold a biblical view of human nature; there is no common fallible human nature that we all share. To him, ethnicity defines everything, and the line between good and evil runs not through every human heart, but between white and black.

https://world.wng.org/content/a_tale_of_two_worldviews
In describing America, Coates quotes Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth, who said, “This country was formed for the white, not for the black man.” This quote, for Coates, captures the very essence of America. There’s no denying the hatred and racism of Booth, or that he represents something larger that has shaped our nation. But here’s the problem with Coates’ writing on America. He spotlights Booth but ignores Abraham Lincoln himself, who wrote, “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel.” So what is the character of America? It is the one described by Booth or by Lincoln? I would argue that you can’t understand America without understanding both, but Lincoln is rightly praised as America’s last founding father—not Booth. Coates, by only focusing on Booth, provides a partial, highly selective—and therefore distorted—picture of America. In doing so, he reveals his postmodern tendency to prioritize narrative at the expense of truth.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Josh »

Perhaps the “partisan alignment” of some of this, including Muller, is with whatever the political faction is that likes to call itself “moderates”.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:Neither you nor Boot answered my question: I'm curious about what you base this statement on.
To which I will add: Who are these non-partisans and moderates? I consider myself non-partisan and I am astonished (frightened really) at some of the things that were swept under the rug during the Obama administration.
I agree with Dan's answer, and we apparently read a lot of the same sources.

When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.

Given the title of this thread, let me point out that the cases you mentioned so far were investigated, and what the investigations found was considerably less frightening than what you read in the torches and pitchforks wing of partisan media. And part of the rule of law is letting it go unless new evidence is uncovered that would invalidate the investigation. Part of living in peace is agreeing not to keep pouring gas on the flames of passion by re-arguing every past offense as though we knew more than the people who did the investigations. As Christians, we must not live in partisan grievance.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:Perhaps the “partisan alignment” of some of this, including Muller, is with whatever the political faction is that likes to call itself “moderates”.
I prefer non-partisan to moderate. Moderate implies that I have to sign up for a particular program that is somewhere between the left and the right. What I really want is for responsible adults to work together to run the government, following the principles in the Constitution, carefully preserving the rule of law. And for people not in government, voting or non-voting, for reasonable adults to discuss issues and policy on the basis of fact, not partisan loyalty or grievance narratives, not pouring gas on the flames. That requires a commitment to investigations and the rule of law.

People like partisan propaganda because it's compelling and exciting and interesting. But it's a lot like pornography, it's empty and meaningless, divorced from any real value, and it's a disease that attacks what holds our society together. American democracy is no substitute for Jesus, but it is what holds this diverse nation together.

I recently heard a legal commentator refer to the courts as "the branch of government still run by reasonable adults". I couldn't help laughing. But it's sadly true right now.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:Neither you nor Boot answered my question: I'm curious about what you base this statement on.
To which I will add: Who are these non-partisans and moderates? I consider myself non-partisan and I am astonished (frightened really) at some of the things that were swept under the rug during the Obama administration.
I agree with Dan's answer, and we apparently read a lot of the same sources.

When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.

Given the title of this thread, let me point out that the cases you mentioned so far were investigated, and what the investigations found was considerably less frightening than what you read in the torches and pitchforks wing of partisan media. And part of the rule of law is letting it go unless new evidence is uncovered that would invalidate the investigation. Part of living in peace is agreeing not to keep pouring gas on the flames of passion by re-arguing every past offense as though we knew more than the people who did the investigations. As Christians, we must not live in partisan grievance.
And haven't you just done to Wayne what you decry about politics? You have in other words questioned Wayne's non-partisan statement about himself which in essence has pitted Wayne's views against your own.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:And haven't you just done to Wayne what you decry about politics? You have in other words questioned Wayne's non-partisan statement about himself which in essence has pitted Wayne's views against your own.
I don't think so. I suggested that you can't call yourself non-partisan and make calls to partisan political loyalty at the same time. I also invited him to let me know anytime he thinks I'm doing that.

That's not what I decry about politics. That's the kind of thing I think Christians need to be doing if we are going to discuss politics. I actually think healthy disagreement is a good thing, and I think we should talk with each other about how we should best relate to this partisan world around us.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply