No Reasonable Prosecutor…If Only We Had One

There is nothing as specious as a a pontificating politician.

Take James-no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case-Comey for example; here he is preaching the benefits of “deterrence” to us.

 But the Jan. 6 investigation is mostly about something you might not think about much in your normal caseload: general deterrence. It is about sending a message—a shock wave of deterrence—so future Americans, whether misled by a lying demagogue or rightfully concerned about the loss of their rights, never again assault the institutions of government. That means that even those who “merely” trespassed by following the crowd inside must be held accountable, even if only guilty of a misdemeanor. “Zero tolerance” is an overused phrase, but it fits here, if a lasting message of general deterrence is to be sent. – WaPo

Just to be clear: this is from a spokesman for the side that doesn’t find it necessary to deter rioters, criminals (unless they’re white), border jumpers or corrupt politicians. But prosecuting citizens “rightfully concerned” about the “loss of their rights,” they must be “deterred.”  That strikes me as a strange “never again” hill to die on.

Former head of the FBI Comey then proceeds to advise us in his most pedantic tone:

“Never again. Vote, argue, litigate, demonstrate. But don’t you dare interfere by force in the operation of this democracy.”

Let’s see where we stand:

“Vote” – got that rigged so not a problem

“Argue” – sure, give it your best shot. But if you disagree with us you will be banned and canceled.

“Litigate” – we own the courts. 

“Demonstrate” – but only where, when and how we say so – otherwise it’s an “insurrection.”

Thank you James, for advancing a truly Progressive view of how justice should work in Amerika. What could possibly go wrong?