Almost everyone that is against undocumented immigrants argues that the “rule of law” is paramount to the debate. To them, it doesn’t matter whether the law is just or complete or even enforceable because “illegal immigrants” must be deported or jailed because the “rule of law” is black and white. “They broke the law” is the collective narrative. Donald Trump has been on a tirade about the Mueller investigation, labelling it a “witch hunt” and arguing that laws were broken and thus the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is invalid.
Whether laws were broken, or processes were abused by the launch of the Mueller investigation, or whether a “spy,” or spies were planted in the Trump campaign is a debate for another time. For now, let’s accept that processes and even laws were circumvented in launching the Mueller investigation. Accepting these as the premise of today’s post, let’s look at where it leaves us.
The Mueller investigation has resulted in five guilty pleas. Five individuals have pleaded guilty to crimes because of the Mueller investigation so far. If we are to accept that the “rule of law” must be paramount then we need to accept that the guilty pleas, under oath, mean that five individuals stood before a judge and stated that they were “not threatened,” or “forced” to plead guilty to the charges, and are “pleading guilty” to the charges. Thus, the five individuals; Michael Flynn, Richard Gates, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo and Alex van der Zwann, are guilty of the crimes they pleaded guilty to.
That is the only definition of the “rule of law” that is valid.
It is true that none of the guilty pleas implicate Donald Trump, or his campaign. But that distinction is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the Mueller investigation has resulted in five guilty pleas for federal crimes.
Thus, the question is, why do Donald Trump and cohorts argue that it is a “witch hunt”? Why lay the foundation that the Mueller investigation is improper?
Does the “rule of law” not require that anyone that breaks a law be held to account, not withstanding the way the crime was discovered?
Remember that many undocumented immigrants are prosecuted for being in the country illegally after being discovered via racial profiling or dubious stops for “speaking Spanish,” or driving on I-10 through an inner border check point. How the undocumented status was detected is immaterial to those who demand that “immigrants follow the law”.
Under this argument, then why is it ok to call the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt” but not referring to draconian immigration enforcement laws that separate children from immigrants or profile people for “speaking Spanish” as a “white-supremacist” attempt to impose a White America?
Why is the “rule of law” only valid for targeting immigrants with hatred but not valid for labeling the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt”.
It is a simple question that deserves a simple answer.