Why do we blindly defend politicians in ethical hot water?

[Mr. Deez]

I'm Facebook friends with numerous Texas GOP activists, and the vast majority of them claim that Ken Paxton is a victim by claiming that his prosecution is politically motivated and/or retribution ordered by Speaker Joe Straus, whom Paxton had run against back in 2010. None of them deny the allegations or defend Paxton on the merits. In fact, they don't address his guilt or innocence at all. All they know is that Paxton is a political ally, so they defend him and call him an innocent victim. To them, it doesn't what he did, if anything. Personally, I'm silent on the issue, because I don't know. I'm reserving judgment until the process plays out. And Democrats don't have any credibility on the issue either. When their people get accused of things, they defend them until conclusively proven wrong. For example, until the blue dress with Bill Clinton's splooge was found, few Democrats would entertain the possibility that he was screwing around with an intern and lying about it.

The point is that so many political fans prejudge their own people as innocent befovre they know anything. It's more than just giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's a blind defense and an affirmative belief in their victimhood based purely on the allegedly bad intentions of their accusers. Why don't we just shut up until the judicial system completes its work? Someone like Paxton is going to go through a jury trial, where evidence will be presented. Why not wait until that happens before jumping to conclusions one way or the other?

Also, let's assume that some politician you like is being prosecuted for political reasons. Does that really matter? If he's guilty, should he get a pass, because some other politician is pushing the prosecution?

Ugh.

 

[Crockett]

I wonder what standard of evidence they are using to link Joe Straus to this? It seems incredibly far-fetched that he'd have much influence with Collin County DA or Grand Jurors. Does the Speaker of the Texas House have more than a perfunctory relationship with the Texas Rangers -- the law enforcement agency.?

 

[Crockett]

Speaking of blindly defending, here is an email I got this on Hillary from a Democratic operative:
"Crockett
You might hear some news over the next few days about Hillary Clinton's emails. Because you are an important part of this team, we wanted to take a few minutes to talk through the facts -- we need your help to make sure they get out there.

There's a lot of misinformation, so bear with us; the truth matters on this.

Here are the basics: Like other Secretaries of State who served before her, Hillary used a personal email address, and the rules of the State Department permitted it. She's already acknowledged that, in hindsight, it would have been better just to use separate work and personal email accounts. No one disputes that.

The State Department's request: Last year, as part of a review of its records, the State Department asked the last four former Secretaries of State to provide any work-related emails they had. Hillary was the only former Secretary of State to provide any materials -- more than 30,000 emails. In fact, she handed over too many -- the Department said it will be returning over 1,200 messages to her because, in their and the National Archives' judgment, these messages were completely personal in nature.

Hillary didn't send any classified materials over email: Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them. She viewed classified materials in hard copy in her office or via other secure means while traveling, not on email.

What makes it complicated: It's common for information previously considered unclassified to be upgraded to classified before being publicly released. Some emails that weren't secret at the time she sent or received them might be secret now. And sometimes government agencies disagree about what should be classified, so it isn't surprising that another agency might want to conduct its own review, even though the State Department has repeatedly confirmed that Hillary's emails contained no classified information at the time she sent or received them.

To be clear, there is absolutely no criminal inquiry into Hillary's email or email server. Any and all reports to that effect have been widely debunked. Hillary directed her team to provide her email server and a thumb drive in order to cooperate with the review process and to ensure these materials were stored in a safe and secure manner.

What about the Benghazi committee? While you may hear from the Republican-led Benghazi committee about Hillary's emails, it is important to remember that the committee was formed to focus on learning lessons from Benghazi to help prevent future tragedies at our embassies and consulates around the globe. Instead, the committee, led by Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, is spending nearly $6 million in taxpayer money to conduct a partisan witch-hunt designed to do political damage to Hillary in the run-up to the election.

Hillary has remained absolutely committed to cooperating. That's why, just as she gave her email server to the government, she's also testifying before the Benghazi committee in October and is actively working with the Justice Department to make sure they have what they need. She hopes that her emails will continue to be released in a timely fashion.

It's worth noting: Many of the Republican candidates for president have done the same things for which they're now criticizing Hillary. As governor, Jeb Bush owned his own private server and his staff decided which emails he turned over as work-related from his private account. Bobby Jindal went a step further, using private email to communicate with his immediate staff but refusing to release his work-related emails. Scott Walker and Rick Perry had email issues themselves.

The bottom line: Look, Early, this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president. We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.

It's okay. We'll be ready. We have the facts, our principles, and you on our side. And it's vital that you read and absorb the real story so that you know what to say the next time you hear about this around the dinner table or the water cooler.

Take a look at more details here, including a complete Q&A, and pass them along:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/email-facts/

Thanks,

Jennifer

Jennifer Palmieri
Communications Director
Hillary for America"

 

[Larry T Spider]

I would have to research more but I'm guessing it goes hand in hand with confirmation bias.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wonder what standard of evidence they are using to link Joe Straus to this? It seems incredibly far-fetched that he'd have much influence with Collin County DA or Grand Jurors. Does the Speaker of the Texas House have more than a perfunctory relationship with the Texas Rangers -- the law enforcement agency.?

Here's an example. It's innuendo and hearsay, but it's designed to gin up hostility to Straus and his leadership team. For those who don't know, Empower Texans is Michael Sullivan's advocacy group that advocates for spending cuts, restrictions on local governments' ability to levy property taxes, etc. Paxton has long been a major advocate for Sullivan's policy agenda, and Sullivan has always pretty much hated Joe Straus. Personally, I like quite a bit of Sullivan's agenda, but he's a bit of a bully. Tony McDonald (who authored the article) is ET's general counsel.

Nevertheless, Sullivan and McDonald are both hand puppets. The boss is Tim Dunn (Midland oil money). Dunn has long been a supporter of Tom Craddick (R-Midland), whom Straus replaced as Speaker. In other words, Dunn not only disagrees with Straus, he hates his guts, because Straus knocked his boy out of the Speaker's chair.

 

[Crockett]

Wow Deez, the commentary under your link is incredible. Facts? who gives a darn about facts? Those guys care only for loyalty.