The Senator of Rhode Island, more recently seen beclowning himself by asking oh-so-serious and deeply grave questions of now-Justice Kavanaugh about some of the fart jokes teen-aged boys were sharing, has told Chris Cuomo (of course) that “if there are crimes that he [President Trump] has committed, he should be indicted.” Here is a partial transcript of his remarks, followed by a little thought experiment using the Senator’s own language to illustrate the blatant, in-your-face hypocrisy of what has become the far left Democrat Party:
“A partial transcript is as follows:
“SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: I think that if there are crimes that he [President Trump] has committed, he should be indicted. I do not at all subscribe to the OLC theory that a president can’t be indicted. I think that the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice bends over backward to take the most executive branch-friendly position that it possibly can. I think a court taking a look at this would say “no, no, no, no, no,” and if you look at the Nixon precedents and others, they don’t align with a president not being answerable to the public in this way. And it would create a terrible situation. You have a president, who the public knows is the subject of a criminal investigation, may very well be involved in criminal activity, and you don’t get a resolution of that question? You don’t get pressure on him to answer questions and get out? That doesn’t seem like an appropriate way to deal with it.
“CHRISTOPHER CUOMO: Based on what you know right now, do you think you could bring a case against the president?
“SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I would want to know a lot more. I’m at the stage, based on what I know, that I would be sitting down with the agents and say “okay, we need to run down this, we need to run down that, we need to pin down some things before we go.” We are certainly in a mode, I believe, of moving toward an indictment and charges of the president, but I do not believe, based on what I know — Mueller may know more — that we’re at the stage of actually being able to make the charge.”
Fully acknowledging that I am engaging in full-blown “what about ism”, it is most interesting to adapt the good Seantor’s own language to the matter of another well-known public official about whom there is little or no question about being involved in criminal activity, with the hope, however illusory, that some day, somehow, we might see this kind of fairness in all of our “representatives” to the National Legislature:
”I think that if there are crimes that she (Former First “Lady” (?), former US Senator, Former Secretary of State, former Presidential candidate) has committed, she should be indicted. …. And it would create a terrible situation. You have a (see above list for all the things she has been, in addition to presently being a “has been”) , who the public knows is the subject of a criminal investigation, may well be involved in criminal activity (about 30,000 counts of Federal felony counts, at last count, at that’s only the e-mail criminality) and you don’t get a resolution of that (those) questions? You don’t get pressure on her to answer questions and get out? That doesn’t seem like an appropriate way to deal with it.”
Just as I got to that point, I woke up, put on the coffee, and returned to the real world where members of that August Club known as the United States Senate, spend their time, on our dime, asking questions of candidates for the highest Court in the land questions about teen aged boys’ bad behavior as if they had any actual substance.