I get accused of committing a tu quoque fallacy when I point out the difference in both treatment and outcomes of issues in the last administration and the present administration.
A tu quoque fallacy is loosely described as trying to negate or advance a position by saying, “Well, you did it too!”, implying that one bad act validates another bad act.
But that’s not what I am doing. There are stark differences in the way President Obama was treated as compared to President Trump. There are distinct differences in what was defined as a “scandal” then versus now. There are demonstrable differences in how the activities of the Hillary Clinton campaign were scrutinized as compared to how the Trump campaign was scrutinized.
Look – Paris Dennard, a Trump supporter and CNN contributor, was just suspended after a confrontation with Phil Mudd, a anti-Trump former member of the intel community. Dennard apparently was fired by Arizona State University 4 years ago for sexual misconduct – but that had nothing to do with the interaction with Mudd and was something CNN should have known before hiring the guy. If he was good enough to be hired, and there are no current incidents then why is he suspended?
I’m certainly not excusing his past behavior – but his employer at the time dealt with that issue according to their policies. This seems a convenient way to sideline someone speaking favorably of the President, especially considering the Asia Argento situation reveals there are two sides to every #metoo story.
The message is if your defense of Trump is a little too aggressive and you draw too much attention, you get axed. The tall blade of grass always gets whacked first.
Prominent pro-Trump GOPer’s are now being charged with various “crimes” – Chris Collins with insider trading and Duncan Hunter with misuse of campaign funds…both a couple of months ahead of the mid-term elections. Where these and the campaign allegations regarding the Trump campaign are being brought and pursued by the Deep State, any attention given to violations by Hillary Clinton’s campaign had to be forced from the outside.
It has now been 9 months since a complaint was filed with the FEC alleging that the Clinton campaign laundered $84 million and no response has been given – but an alleged misuse of $250,000 by Duncan Hunter and Cohen payments of $280.000 are front page news.
As I pointed out the other day:
– Hillary Clinton – not seriously investigated (never questioned under oath) for clearly criminal acts and “cleared” by James Comey.
– Human Abedin and Cheryl Mills – given preemptive immunity before being interviewed.
– Debbie Wasserman Scultz and her Pakistani IT family – nothing for “Eugene” Debs and a hand slap for the Pakistani IT guys.
– Senator Bob Menendez – DOJ declines to continue to prosecute corruption charges.
– No credible investigation of the Clinton Family Crime Foundation and Global Massage Parlor Initiative by New York AG – but a rectal exam of the Trump Foundation.
– Clear connections between the Clinton campaign and Democrat operative employees of the DOJ and FBI to Russian “influencers” via the Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the Dirty Dossier but the focus is trying to convict Trump supporters of tax evasion and bank fraud unrelated to any “collusion” or the election.
I’m sure people can think of more – nothing the Obama administration did was considered a scandal, now everything the Trump administration does is – but this isn’t a tu quoque fallacy, this is fact happening right in front of us and in full public view. It is gross misuse of government, trampling on both Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
We are witnessing the criminalization of politics right before our eyes as Democrats and our NeverTrump friends cheer it on.