Words count, at least for those interested in the truth. One cannot seriously invoke state power against one’s adversaries and later complain that he is the victim of a state witch-hunt; or else, there is some coherent explaining to do. Coherence and truth are related. Reporting on the investigation of the Trump Organization by the New York Attorney-General, remarks in this morning’s Financial Times may serve as an illustration:
The Trumps have repeatedly denied wrongdoing and dismissed the attorney-general’s investigation as a politically motivated witch hunt. …
In a civil case, jurors are allowed to make an “adverse inference” when a defendant refuses to answer a question and instead pleads the Fifth Amendment. Or, as Eric’s father put it during the 2016 presidential campaign: “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment?” At the time, he was casting aspersions on aides to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. “The mob takes the fifth,” Trump said.
Of course, if it needs to be added, the Fifth Amendment was not meant to protect the state against individuals but, on the contrary, to protect individuals against the state. On the function of constitutional constraints from the point of view of the individual, it is worth reading the classic book by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, or at least my recent review in Liberty Classics.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Jan 31 2022 at 12:57pm
“One cannot seriously invoke state power against one’s adversaries and later complain that he is the victim of a state witch-hunt”
Why not? One can argue that your use of the state’s power was a just use of that power and argue that the state force being employed against you is the application of arbitrary and capricious authority.
NY’s TDS fueled persecution is just another episode of lawfare in the cold civil war underpins the necessity of the #nationaldivorce.
Take it seriously or not, but take THIS seriously, I moved 1200 miles to get as far away from these people as humanly possible and that’s apparently not going to be far enough, interpose an international boundary.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 31 2022 at 9:49pm
Craig: On your first point, this is to (partly) answer this argument that I immediately added: “or else, there is some coherent explaining to do.”
Craig
Jan 31 2022 at 11:45pm
I can say that I have taken many mortgage loans and I can say that I have never taken a loan where a bank relies on a borrower’s assertion about the value of his or her property. They’ll ask of course just to make sure the conversation is worth having, but at the end of the day? They send their own appraisers and you pay for them too when you close on the loan.
Scott Sumner
Jan 31 2022 at 7:15pm
If we start listing all the times Donald Trump contradicted himself . . .
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 31 2022 at 9:52pm
You are of course right, Scott. This one, though, looks particularly glaring to me, and especially useful to reflect on the political-economy function of constitutional constraints.
vince
Feb 2 2022 at 2:47pm
Does that accusation not apply to virtually all politicians?
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 2 2022 at 9:46pm
Vince: I am not sure. As you suspect, I am opposed to any hunt against anything but serious, non-victimless crimes. I would say, however, that such hunts are somewhat easier to understand when the witch has publicly shouted, “Beelzebub, are you listening?” or something to that effect. Remember 2016 (I am quoting a news item from the Associated Press):
On July 13, 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced that the Department of Justice had
If I am not mistaken, there has been no arrest and no trial as the persons charged live in Russia.
vince
Feb 1 2022 at 11:29am
Was the Russia Hoax not a witch hunt?
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 2 2022 at 9:51pm
Vince: Responding to your last comment, I am not sure. As you suspect, I am opposed to any hunt against anything but serious, non-victimless crimes. I would say, however, that such hunts are somewhat easier to understand when the witch has publicly shouted, “Beelzebub, are you listening?” or something to that effect. Remember 2016 (I am quoting a news item from the Associated Press):
On July 13, 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced that the Department of Justice had
If I am not mistaken, there has been no arrest and no trial as the persons charged live in Russia.
vince
Feb 2 2022 at 11:30pm
But of course the fact that they were charged helps support the narrative. Throw mud and hope it sticks.
It really seems a stretch to take Trump’s jestful comment as a command that Russia obediently followed.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 3 2022 at 3:07pm
Vince: I know, you can never know whether he means black as he said yesterday or white as he said today. But if he wanted to make a jest, why “Russia” instead of “God” or “American hackers,” or “Stormy”?
vince
Feb 3 2022 at 4:13pm
Yes, he was secretly colluding with them. No, not secretly, he was announcing to the world that he was colluding. No, not announcing, dictating to Russia.
Craig
Feb 2 2022 at 10:33pm
Of course by that time the 30k emails were ‘missing’, right? HRC had set up a private server and of course let’s face it, the only reason to do that is to evade oversight. Practically everybody in Corporate America does something similar, for instance people actually avoid using company email knowing full well that company email is monitored by the company. So employees communicate through other channels companies don’t or can’t monitor directly (though obviously that doesn’t make your private text messages with coworkers any less subject to a subpoena later on, but I digress).
The only way they would’ve hacked them is if they had already been hacked and in their possession. They don’t need Trump to extoll them to hack, hackers gonna hack 24/7 365 days per year. Russians try to hack my ecommerce websites, WP websites, you name it its a constant assault. And if this were a civil case there was direct evidence of intentional spoliation here including the use of hammers, Bleach Bit, you name it.
But for criminal purposes they would’ve needed to have proven that the handling of the information was careless and of course no better evidence of careless could’ve existed than evidence the Russians had them already.
Always remember who the lifelong politicians are who want to lay claim to more than half your income and who builds buildings.
Comments are closed.