Hum, words? -- Emancipation, retaliation, disputes – just words?
  

Regardless of words, there should be a way to clarify actions or events, crypt or encrypt fairness. The current crises in the US is rather a common situation:

1. On the country's enormous prison population! US is not a police state – are you sure?

Quote: “In far too many cases, the punishment simply does not fit the crime”

2. Buchanan said: AHR Said: "A good class to take in law interpretation"

"It was Lincoln who said the one who decides what the law says, he’s the lawgiver."

"It’s a natural inclination. [Judges] put on these robes and all of a sudden, they rule our lives."

3. There was an interest in 1985, as such a panel concluded to develop sentencing guidelines for federal judges.

4. Observe a little history: List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

5. Hum, pure stupidity: suspicions about the Trump administration’s alleged close ties to Moscow 

“and how the diplomats from either party should behave? Even apparent diplomatic efforts must maintain a cold relationship and not isolation”

ttp://thehill.com/homenews/house/319421-chairman-house-intel-panel-wont-investigate-flynn-will-probe-leaks

How to make peace when peace is not the opponent’s wish? Logical, the war is eminent. Even more, persisting with frequent criticism undermines efforts to improve a relationship.

Recommendation, simplicity, clarity:

Procedure: A manager or an executive always conducts a review of what is he taking over under his responsibilities, either an inventory or human resource assets -- it is a review, an audit or the least a reconciliation. With that in mind, you can have a look at the president for doing his job – as THE Executive.  Observe Mr. Trump as someone that it will take actions based on his experience and ability – I believe he has proven abilities otherwise he wouldn’t be elected.

Classical is the scandals occurring as a side effect of his election including the usage of offending vocabulary, while riots is the result of fear. Why fear the president at such an early stage? First of all fear is relevant because crime was committed in the name of a greater cause so frequently under the prior presidency that it will be impossible not to prosecute, impeach, you name it. Fear that by replacing the current corrupt justice more crime will be made public. The fear that the current president will apply the same force as the prior presidency applied against its competitor. 

The stakes are high:

The trophy some may say, it is very aggressively outlined and identified. Public claims are already made and too many have asked for justice regardless of polarization. Justice should prevail in that (I suspect) the Clinton’s Foundation is nothing but an insurance agency to protect certain criminal activity – it was built that way as a structure to resist claims of government atrocities and it is not a result of democracy. Witness today deterrence from common good. Witness today how diverting public funds for personal gains it is illegal or it is not. Deterrence from justice it is illegal, should that be the case. Instigation is taking forms of obstructing justice and peace, riots persist on both sides – do not advise for recourse to war but for peaceful justice and resolution. Judges are aware of the danger and very few wants to participate in such cases. The alternative is a panel of independent committee to decide the best interest of the public – to form an un-polarized committee it is the quest. A higher crime was committed over and over again – chaos is not peace.

Do not be surprised that the president along with some justice, whatever that may be, it will shake hands with the devil. Meaning, he may be influential and a defender of Clinton’s Foundation. However, the people’s claim should not be demoralized by obstructing justice, democrats inclusive should ask at least that such money/assets be returned to the people.

Perhaps another time we will also look at the justice to see evidence of corruption and government atrocities. Where is that infamous panel who crippled Arthur Andersen in Enron case, and why they are not auditing? Was in that case political polarization?

And yes I am aware that the writing may sound like populism but so it is the constitution that begins with “we the people”. Also be reminded of an old fashion statement inferring “uniform application of rules only brings stabilization”! Do we have an impartial audit at least? So far we only have a president that is not allowed to even form a committee. So, what kind of presidency is this? Just deter yourself from more chaos – that is when outside forces needs to intervene – chaos will motivate beyond comprehension, for acts of war. But for now it is only observed as hate crime. How far instigating to hate crime until justice occurs?

Although diverted into a criminal activity, in order to reveal a higher crime it is necessary to be a whistleblower at least. There is no choice. The current president is the responsible party to make peace even by force if necessary.

Arthur Andersen does exist, Enron not. (Arthur Andersen conviction was dismissed during 2005 by the Supreme Court)

https://www.ft.com/content/c8974bcc-5708-11e5-a28b-50226830d644

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=enron+stock+chart+history&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnetwmd.com%2Farticles%2Fenrn.gif#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnetwmd.com%2Farticles%2Fenrn.gif&action=click

Tier Benefits
Recent Posts