This. Judging from past attempts to 'arrest Trump' it will be a big nothing burger, after some more-or-less lawyerly communications between parties.
However, as Jimmy Dore pointed out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqi2bBpmSZU - the rabid left has handed Trump a political campaign on a platter. He instructs the viewer to never give up: that he is the ONE that stands between this off-the-rails mob and human freedom.
As an aside, there is a very interesting international lawyer talking today -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLUUpJ11PlE - about Human Rights, International law, and the emergence of what the rabid left likes to call International Rules-based order. The latter is a mythical, ideological construct used to prop up the interests of whomever conjures it up - mainly the USA & UK. Interestingly, the idea that international law and (human rights based) legitimacy were two separate concepts, was promulgated by Tony Blair in the context of the US/NATO bombing of Serbia. That this action was illegal, according to sovereignty-based international law is irrefutable, however, those who participated in it, claimed they were on the right side of history.
Unfortunately, leading up to the bombing, the story according to Serbia was ignored, while the US only recognized Kosovan voices. Both sides committed (some) atrocities , BTW- but it was not a genocide by any means. Yet Tony Blair created a specter of genocide and frightened the world. Yet only one side was supported by the military might of NATO, which is illegal, since they picked a side in a domestic squabble. One can see there are human rights grievances tied up in that, even as the claim was legitimacy (i.e. that Kosovo was in the right)- since Serbs lost their innocent children, during the unannounced bombing raids committed by NATO fighter-jets.
Not wanting to ramble, however, as the speaker in the Duran video points out, there is so much overlap, between the two terms: legality and legitimacy, that they are indistinguishable. A division between them was deliberately coined by Tony Blair.
In that pivotal time period, we see all the familiar names of neo-cons emerge on the world stage. Arguably, this illegal invasion opened the door to more lawlessness, and an open slather, for the likes of Hilary Clinton, to bend the law but claim legitimacy (think Libya). Enter Donald Trump, and to some extent, the Russians - now a religious state - who follow international law to the letter, but are laboring against claims of illegitimacy from the West.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, we are at a point now, with the unprecedented persecution of an outsider-President (DJT), that the leftists feel that they have the right to follow their own instinct, that ultimately aims to eliminate those who disagree with them, because of some sort of claim to legitimacy (muh feefees). It is mirrored in the Tranny-rage, also - where we see women attacked because they want to be women, in female spaces that are invaded by men masquerading. Ultimately, in my opinion, this unease is due to the separation of the concepts of legality and legitimacy - now, It's all about muh fee-fees to the libs, and hang whatever the 'stupid' law says - the latter is for right wing conservatives who are easily dismissed, via name-calling.
So, Trump will not be arrested. He will not be fingerprinted or mug-shotted. Much as fee-fee merchants are salivating at the prospect. On what charge will he be arrested, legally? One cannot say. Some people still read those laws.
Biden, Hillary, Obama, Holder, Actblue…..
Rallies and riddles?
Nothing!! More fundraising
This. Judging from past attempts to 'arrest Trump' it will be a big nothing burger, after some more-or-less lawyerly communications between parties.
However, as Jimmy Dore pointed out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqi2bBpmSZU - the rabid left has handed Trump a political campaign on a platter. He instructs the viewer to never give up: that he is the ONE that stands between this off-the-rails mob and human freedom.
As an aside, there is a very interesting international lawyer talking today -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLUUpJ11PlE - about Human Rights, International law, and the emergence of what the rabid left likes to call International Rules-based order. The latter is a mythical, ideological construct used to prop up the interests of whomever conjures it up - mainly the USA & UK. Interestingly, the idea that international law and (human rights based) legitimacy were two separate concepts, was promulgated by Tony Blair in the context of the US/NATO bombing of Serbia. That this action was illegal, according to sovereignty-based international law is irrefutable, however, those who participated in it, claimed they were on the right side of history.
Unfortunately, leading up to the bombing, the story according to Serbia was ignored, while the US only recognized Kosovan voices. Both sides committed (some) atrocities , BTW- but it was not a genocide by any means. Yet Tony Blair created a specter of genocide and frightened the world. Yet only one side was supported by the military might of NATO, which is illegal, since they picked a side in a domestic squabble. One can see there are human rights grievances tied up in that, even as the claim was legitimacy (i.e. that Kosovo was in the right)- since Serbs lost their innocent children, during the unannounced bombing raids committed by NATO fighter-jets.
Not wanting to ramble, however, as the speaker in the Duran video points out, there is so much overlap, between the two terms: legality and legitimacy, that they are indistinguishable. A division between them was deliberately coined by Tony Blair.
In that pivotal time period, we see all the familiar names of neo-cons emerge on the world stage. Arguably, this illegal invasion opened the door to more lawlessness, and an open slather, for the likes of Hilary Clinton, to bend the law but claim legitimacy (think Libya). Enter Donald Trump, and to some extent, the Russians - now a religious state - who follow international law to the letter, but are laboring against claims of illegitimacy from the West.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, we are at a point now, with the unprecedented persecution of an outsider-President (DJT), that the leftists feel that they have the right to follow their own instinct, that ultimately aims to eliminate those who disagree with them, because of some sort of claim to legitimacy (muh feefees). It is mirrored in the Tranny-rage, also - where we see women attacked because they want to be women, in female spaces that are invaded by men masquerading. Ultimately, in my opinion, this unease is due to the separation of the concepts of legality and legitimacy - now, It's all about muh fee-fees to the libs, and hang whatever the 'stupid' law says - the latter is for right wing conservatives who are easily dismissed, via name-calling.
So, Trump will not be arrested. He will not be fingerprinted or mug-shotted. Much as fee-fee merchants are salivating at the prospect. On what charge will he be arrested, legally? One cannot say. Some people still read those laws.
Sorry for wall of text. LOL