First, on The Wall. I'd like to ask a question. Now the question is a pure hypothetical, but please don't answer that the premise is impossible so the question isn't worth answering. The question is designed to hone an issue. And the question is, "If The Wall cost $100, would you still object to its being built. It's a critical question. If the answer's "yes", then I guess you really do believe that The Wall is, somehow, magically - immoral. But if the answer's "no", as it would almost undoubtedly be for most objectioners (doesn't it really HAVE to be "no"?!?), then the issue is brought into clarity. And the issue is cost. So, if indeed the issue is cost, shouldn't the debate shift from "should it be built" to "can it reasonably be financed"?* Just askin' . . .
Now onto the notion of a "witch hunt". This one's bizarre to me, and no one's called anyone out on it. The narrative goes that because there have been indictments, guilty pleas and the like, regarding ANYthing, then by definition the Mueller probe is not a witch hunt. But that's absurd. The basic nature of a witch hunt is that you're looking for things that DID happen so as to debilitate someone you hate. To wit, suppose that you want to fire the CEO of X Corp., and then if the CEO is fired without cause the CEO will get $30MM in severance. But if the CEO is fired with cause the CEO gets nothing. So you scour the records and find a receipt for $10 spent on non-business food and a video record of the taking of a stapler for the CEO's child. Both ARE clear violations of company policy, implicating such things as fraud and embezzlement. But do they justify a $30MM forfeiture? THAT's the nature of a witch hunt. Sure the CEO did those things. Something was bound to be uncovered, arguably. But are we left a with a "so what" or something more. So the right focus is not on whether the Mueller probe is yielding indictments or pleas, or even convictions, but whether, let's say, the issues rise to a sufficient level of importance or whether the issues are even remotely germane to the purpose of the inquiry (which I guess (silly me) I thought was collusion).** Now, we can debate and argue those points. But please don't tell me that because some kind of something was uncovered that's per se proof that the Mueller probe isn't a witch hunt.
__________
* This sorta reminds me of the old inappropriate sexist joke that goes something like: "Will you sleep with me for $1MM?" "Sure." "OK, great. Will you sleep with me for $1?" "OMG, no. What kind of a girl do you think I am?!?" "We've already established that. Now, we're just haggling over price."
** Can you say, "Monica Lewinsky"? Wasn't that probe supposed to be about Whitewater?
