It's the asymmetry, stupid!

Now that the self-admitted deserter Bowe Bergdahl has been given a slap on the wrist for causing massive suffering to many American soldiers, commentators, including some "conservative" ones, are getting back to the real story: it's all Trump's fault.

Instead of condemning an obviously politically biased and über-P.C. judge who clearly has no idea of what it takes to maintain morale in the military, those august seers, some of whom are lawyers, are telling us that the president of the USA, expressing both common sense and the consensus of the people, is a threat to our justice system.

Why is it that those same sage pundits have no problem with people in power, like, say, Obama, saying glowing things about traitors?

While it's not possible to read their minds, the obvious point is that our modern justice system is designed to favor the guilty.  Any evidence adverse to the crook's case must pass a huge list of complex rules before being admissible, while a red carpet is rolled out for any potentially exculpatory, or even just jury-confusing, evidence.

It's precisely that asymmetry that causes Americans to feel that the "justice" system is rigged in favor of traitors, deserters, terrorists, rapists, drug-dealers, and murderers.  While no one wants to get rid of due process, people are tired of lawyers playing games, and enriching themselves, at the expense of future victims.

Because the people who run the justice system live in safe, or even gated, neighborhoods, they're not the ones who suffer when rapists, drug-dealers, and murders are let free based on technicalities.  Similarly, the members of the military who run the military justice system aren't going to have to occupy a foxhole at any point in the near future, so saying desertion in the face of the enemy is no big deal won't impact their life expectancy much. 

That asymmetry, however, is what's gotten the American people, who do have to deal with the consequences of liberal P.C. judges, upset.

Americans want a legal system that gets justice, which includes freeing the innocent, not one that exults simply following the rules.

The people are tired of a system where rich people, or members of protected classes like deserters who have been lionized by Obama, can game the system to literally get away with murder.  Basically, the people want a legal system that uses common sense, not legalistic sophistry.

Anyone who says the president talking about a specific case will cause all those involved, from the judge to the lawyers, to suddenly become corrupt is either a liar or a fool.  They know that Trump's comments won't impact judges or juries, but because he's violating the legal decorum – the guilty are really innocent, no matter what the evidence shows – it's just another thing to attack Trump about.

The same commentators who are saying Trump's comments would deny Bergdahl a fair trial seem to think massively biased liberal media coverage of any issue – like, say, the Duke lacrosse team rape case – doesn't imperil people's right to a fair trial. 

Those Beltway commentators are silent while the entire Democrat media complex is working nonstop to attack Trump about his imaginary ties to Russia while a special prosecutor is investigating those ties.  If Trump making a single comment destroys the chances for someone to get a fair trial, why doesn't CNN's 24/7 "Trump is a traitor" diatribe invalidate Mueller's investigation?

The answer is that it's the asymmetry.  It's okay to malign conservatives and people the left doesn't like, such as Trump, but it's verboten to condemn terrorists, deserters, drug-dealers, rapists, and murders.

Basically, these commentators are saying that while the media have the First Amendment right to lie to their heart's content about people liberals don't like, the president doesn't have the right to express his opinion.

This is shocking only for the "conservative" pundits pushing this narrative.  The liberal pundits, on the other hand, are already on record supporting the suppression of the free speech rights of anyone they don't agree with.

It's time for the people to make it clear that we want a just justice system, not a system designed to enrich lawyers and massively increase the number of people who are the victims of crime.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Now that the self-admitted deserter Bowe Bergdahl has been given a slap on the wrist for causing massive suffering to many American soldiers, commentators, including some "conservative" ones, are getting back to the real story: it's all Trump's fault.

Instead of condemning an obviously politically biased and über-P.C. judge who clearly has no idea of what it takes to maintain morale in the military, those august seers, some of whom are lawyers, are telling us that the president of the USA, expressing both common sense and the consensus of the people, is a threat to our justice system.

Why is it that those same sage pundits have no problem with people in power, like, say, Obama, saying glowing things about traitors?

While it's not possible to read their minds, the obvious point is that our modern justice system is designed to favor the guilty.  Any evidence adverse to the crook's case must pass a huge list of complex rules before being admissible, while a red carpet is rolled out for any potentially exculpatory, or even just jury-confusing, evidence.

It's precisely that asymmetry that causes Americans to feel that the "justice" system is rigged in favor of traitors, deserters, terrorists, rapists, drug-dealers, and murderers.  While no one wants to get rid of due process, people are tired of lawyers playing games, and enriching themselves, at the expense of future victims.

Because the people who run the justice system live in safe, or even gated, neighborhoods, they're not the ones who suffer when rapists, drug-dealers, and murders are let free based on technicalities.  Similarly, the members of the military who run the military justice system aren't going to have to occupy a foxhole at any point in the near future, so saying desertion in the face of the enemy is no big deal won't impact their life expectancy much. 

That asymmetry, however, is what's gotten the American people, who do have to deal with the consequences of liberal P.C. judges, upset.

Americans want a legal system that gets justice, which includes freeing the innocent, not one that exults simply following the rules.

The people are tired of a system where rich people, or members of protected classes like deserters who have been lionized by Obama, can game the system to literally get away with murder.  Basically, the people want a legal system that uses common sense, not legalistic sophistry.

Anyone who says the president talking about a specific case will cause all those involved, from the judge to the lawyers, to suddenly become corrupt is either a liar or a fool.  They know that Trump's comments won't impact judges or juries, but because he's violating the legal decorum – the guilty are really innocent, no matter what the evidence shows – it's just another thing to attack Trump about.

The same commentators who are saying Trump's comments would deny Bergdahl a fair trial seem to think massively biased liberal media coverage of any issue – like, say, the Duke lacrosse team rape case – doesn't imperil people's right to a fair trial. 

Those Beltway commentators are silent while the entire Democrat media complex is working nonstop to attack Trump about his imaginary ties to Russia while a special prosecutor is investigating those ties.  If Trump making a single comment destroys the chances for someone to get a fair trial, why doesn't CNN's 24/7 "Trump is a traitor" diatribe invalidate Mueller's investigation?

The answer is that it's the asymmetry.  It's okay to malign conservatives and people the left doesn't like, such as Trump, but it's verboten to condemn terrorists, deserters, drug-dealers, rapists, and murders.

Basically, these commentators are saying that while the media have the First Amendment right to lie to their heart's content about people liberals don't like, the president doesn't have the right to express his opinion.

This is shocking only for the "conservative" pundits pushing this narrative.  The liberal pundits, on the other hand, are already on record supporting the suppression of the free speech rights of anyone they don't agree with.

It's time for the people to make it clear that we want a just justice system, not a system designed to enrich lawyers and massively increase the number of people who are the victims of crime.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.