… so I’m still trying to figure out the psychology, or the legal theory, or anything else someone comes up with, to explain why they’re still merrily walking around free as birds after having flouted Congressional rules with “absolute executive immunity” clownage that, to quote Rep Ted Lieu, is not even a thing.
BT scholars? TSB? GT? Anybody …?
I really am serious. My first thought was that Nader and all the other MALE chairmen and MALE heads of state who have inquiry and enforcement powers right now really are at a disadvantage to use their discretion in the interest of justice when they are confronted with the gasp-level over-groomed super-groomed “conventional attractiveness” of someone like Hope Hicks, for the same reason they haven’t invited Ivanka T to speak even though nobody wants to admit that (or even talk about it).
Though I do also give Rep Lieu credit for staying on Hatch Act violators regardless of Glamma Appeal or tens of millions owned while occupying positions (that are supposed to be) in public service
But that Theory of Laydeez doesn’t explain McGahn or Mnuchin still bopping around to events at that Trump Hotel DC or meals like brunch at the Four Seasons … especially in a situation where Republicans have proven they’re going to act just like the Proud Boys, but just in better suits
and test boundaries and escalate and behave in more and more corrupt ways and make everything worse and worse for everyone else till somebody puts up a big sign
in the form of some serious consequences. Those foreign firms who kept fighting the Mueller subpoenas were squeezed with something like $25K fines *daily* until THEY complied and coughed up the documents prosecutors were seeking. That worked.
If some prospective (or even real time) victim pops the bully a good one before the bully really gets rolling, that’s an action generally known to stop said bully in his or her tracks. But if you just keep rewarding terrible behavior by failing to deliver any kind of proportionate consequences …
I mean ... I don’t get it. Didn’t we read about how “appeasement generally doesn’t work out well” in all those honors history classes?
I think what I’m getting at – even though it might sound obvious – is that WHO is put into positions to decide how to exercise prosecutorial discretion as to how laws are applied, and ON WHOM those laws are applied, is all going to affect WHETHER those laws are applied equitably … as so many who stand to gain from the status quo ways in which they are currently applied would appear to have little incentive to change those ways, even as they stand before the mics of the world continuing to bray such platitudes as “butbutbut EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAAAAAAWWW”
Hence, why so many of the rest of us squinch our faces so hard in the wake of travesties of supposed “equity of treatment like the #VarsityBlues Scandal
or every time some flag-squatter starts yowling about how “sports is a MERITOCRACYYYYYYYYYYYY”
I have to go try to finish some of the stuff on the neuroscience of implicit bias now
*tries to shrink back under multiple sweaters in freezing AC midday in anticipation of “SCOTUS” decisions about citizenship questions on 2020 census when the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS WILBUR ROSS LIED UNDER OATH AND WHAT WAS THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE DOING POKING HIS NOSE IN HOW THE CENSUS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK ANYWAY*