Can American conservatism survive intact & unadulterated?

[GGT]

Before we go too far off the tracks (about the future of conservatism), I want to ask Lewk if he thinks *social conservatives* would have focused on judicial appointments if they didn't already respect the Rule of Law and the DoJ?

Because what we have now is a weird mixture of alt-right conservatives that have bought into the "Deep State" conspiracy theory that believes the DoJ, FBI, and all career civil servants have been "contaminated" somehow, that even the Rule of Law can no longer be trusted.

Meanwhile, Trump derides his own appointees, sometimes throws them under the bus (UN Ambassador Haley the latest example) and feeds a mistrust in any agency that doesn't cater to his schizoid impulses, as expressed on Twitter.

[Lewkowski]

Before we go too far off the tracks (about the future of conservatism), I want to ask Lewk if he thinks *social conservatives* would have focused on judicial appointments if they didn't already respect the Rule of Law and the DoJ?

Because what we have now is a weird mixture of alt-right conservatives that have bought into the "Deep State" conspiracy theory that believes the DoJ, FBI, and all career civil servants have been "contaminated" somehow, that even the Rule of Law can no longer be trusted.

Meanwhile, Trump derides his own appointees, sometimes throws them under the bus (UN Ambassador Haley the latest example) and feeds a mistrust in any agency that doesn't cater to his schizoid impulses, as expressed on Twitter.

Eh? Almost every conservative says they are for the rule of law (and most liberals too). If the law is being subverted due to political leanings and personal bias you would want your own appointees in there to fix it.

As far as Trump is concerned, yeah he throws his own people under the boss because he's an asshole with a short attention span. You won't find me defending everything Trump does. From his ridiculous tariffs to his stupid use of twitter he is FAR FAR from the ideal president. I would take Bush Sr, GWB, or Reagan over him in a heartbeat.

[GGT]

Eh? Almost every conservative says they are for the rule of law (and most liberals too). If the law is being subverted due to political leanings and personal bias you would want your own appointees in there to fix it.

What makes you think the law is being subverted due to political leanings and personal bias?

BTW, appointees are supposed to uphold the constitution and prosecute existing laws, NOT just do a president's bidding. Positions like head of FBI have long tenures, can overlap administrations, and are filled by 'career civil servants' regardless of political party. That's why they're vetted with congressional hearings.

No, you're talking like one of those "Lock her up" partisans. That was bad enough for a campaign, but wanting to jail political opponents is NOT the democratic way.

[Lewkowski]

What makes you think the law is being subverted due to political leanings and personal bias?

BTW, appointees are supposed to uphold the constitution and prosecute existing laws, NOT just do a president's bidding. Positions like head of FBI have long tenures, can overlap administrations, and are filled by 'career civil servants' regardless of political party. That's why they're vetted with congressional hearings.

No, you're talking like one of those "Lock her up" partisans. That was bad enough for a campaign, but wanting to jail political opponents is NOT the democratic way.

If she broke the law, do you think she should go to jail? Or do you want to give her a pass because 'we don't jail political opponents.'

[GGT]

If she broke the law, do you think she should go to jail? Or do you want to give her a pass because 'we don't jail political opponents.'

Those two sentences don't go together. But it does illustrate a binary view of rule-of-law and justice that's disturbing. I think you should stop referencing the *jail* card because:

Not all crimes means the guilty spend time in *jail*. Especially not for financial crimes (see Wells Fargo).
You probably can't name one person who's been found guilty of violating Federal Election Commission laws that's spending time in *jail*.

So stop using the *jail* reference as if it means justice.

[Lewkowski]

Those two sentences don't go together. But it does illustrate a binary view of rule-of-law and justice that's disturbing. I think you should stop referencing the *jail* card because:

Not all crimes means the guilty spend time in *jail*. Especially not for financial crimes (see Wells Fargo).
You probably can't name one person who's been found guilty of violating Federal Election Commission laws that's spending time in *jail*.

So stop using the *jail* reference as if it means justice.

The mishandling of classified information, obstruction of justice and possible perjury charges are examples which would could lead to jail sentences. We don't even need to get into 'pay for play' which her foundation is likely guilty of but would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt until someone flipped.

[GGT]

The mishandling of classified information, obstruction of justice and possible perjury charges are examples which would could lead to jail sentences. We don't even need to get into 'pay for play' which her foundation is likely guilty of but would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt until someone flipped.

Everything you said could easily be applied to Trump, Inc.