Rule Of Intent

For democracy to work, there must be rule of law. Whoever heard of a lawless democracy? It can't exist. Democracy itself is a contract of sorts. There are to be fair, orderly elections. The losers agree to allow the winners to take power. In return, the winners agree to limitations on their power, otherwise the losers would never agree. No losers will play their democratic role if they know that the winners will promptly begin executions. If it is well-known that the winners aren't going to play fair, then there will always be war.

Rule of law is essentially a set of limitations on whom the government can punish, and guidelines as to whom the government should punish. The winners aren't entitled to arbitrarily kill, imprison, or fine their political opponents. There are not supposed to be political prisoners in a Western democracy. Those who break the various contracts must be punished, otherwise contracts become meaningless and the democracy fails. Corruption can't be tolerated among those given great authority. If even the lawmakers can't obey the laws, then we're really in trouble.

An entire branch of government is dedicated to deciding who should be punished. For all the vast complexity of the various regulatory codes and the hordes of lawyers speaking legalese, the premise is simple: the government cannot punish when there is not sufficient evidence of a crime, and must punish when there is.

From this simple explanation of democracy, it is evident that two fundamental principles are broken. One is that the losers have stopped accepting defeat. The left has not physically declared war on the elected government, but have instead engaged in lawfare and subversion. Second, the legal system is no longer used primarily to make sober determinations of guilt and innocence, but as an organ to punish political opponents. A similar thing happened with the media. Supposedly the unofficial fourth branch of government because the voting public must be well-informed, it is now used primarily as an organ to punish political opponents. The legal system and media also serve to protect political allies from their deserved punishments.

Recent high-publicity events show that the legal insurrection has proceeded by replacing objective evidence with intent. Intent has become a useful tool to excuse allied criminals, while arbitrarily punishing opponents. James Comey infamously pardoned Hillary Clinton after outlining her crimes by citing a lack of intent, even though the relevant statute specifically criminalized gross negligence. The incident was so clear-cut as to unambiguously prove that the DOJ was using fake principles of intent to grant arbitrary pardons from justice. Similarly, the recent OIG report on the illegal spying against a presidential candidate has effectively amounted to a public pardoning à la Comey; reciting a condensed list of broken rules, but generally reassuring us that there was no intent so there is no need for punishment. Of course we all read the insider texts and we know damn well that the whole "investigation" was a political operation, but that doesn't matter. Rule of intent means that the people in charge decide what intent is.

Conversely, the media and justice system have spent the last four years mounting fraudulent investigations to find any evidence of a crime committed by the unauthorized president. Falling short, they always turn to intent. Supposedly, Donald Trump instructed Vladimir Putin to release Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 emails (the ones she destroyed while under a preservation order) thus he is guilty of treason - even though the 30,000 emails have never seen the light of day. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence of a crime even occurring; all that matters is that the man has been found guilty by the court of imperial opinion. The rest is details. Similar claims were also made about Ukraine, despite Trump never receiving the concessions he supposedly demanded from a fellow head-of-state. If the gay anchors of CNN say there was intent, you must not acquit.

Today, the House has decided to draw up articles of impeachment based on obstruction of justice because the president chose to ignore the subpoenas of the perpetual investigation against him. Apparently, refusing to participate in your own phony impeachment is cause for impeachment. Ultimately there is no crime, and the weak charges show it all comes down to intent. Intent just means being on the wrong side. So on trial is not Trump, but the political system. Does our so-called democracy ignore rule of law and flagrantly punish political adversaries? Well, they're halfway there already. Once it passes the House, just a few turncoat Republican Senators are needed, and there are plenty of candidates.

If Trump is removed from office, there will be war. Don't imagine millions of armed patriots taking to the streets, but the public execution of the rule of law will lead to degeneration of the democratic order fairly quickly. The game will clearly be one of acquiring and holding power by any means necessary. There will be no benefit in acknowledging defeats or subjecting oneself to the rule of law. In fact, if Trump is impeached he'd be best off to retain the office by force if possible, but he's too isolated for that. What we have here is America's "Crossing the Rubicon" movement. However, it's not Caesar considering taking power from the Senate by force, but rather the Senate itself that may revolt against the rule of law and replace it with the rule of intent.