Some comments demand response in El Sellers’ latest Letter to the Editor, run June 20, “LAWFARE: THE LAST REFUGE OF LIBERALS.”
Explaining, Sellers offers: “the term (“lawfare”) as currently used, explains using legal statutes as political weapons against an opponent.” This is true, in that BOTH sides will make accusations of lawbreaking against the other political side. These LEGAL charges, true or not, may indeed be intended to harm the opponent politically. Think: “Hunter Biden’s Laptop.”
If TRUE, of course, these charges are meant to ENFORCE OUR LAWS. Politicians are not immune from laws, and political corruption is as old as politics. Citizens SHOULD be skeptical of politicians; temptations are great.
Our LAW is indeed a “weapon.” Our legal system is the way a civilized society deals with law breaking as the alternative to vigilante justice, lynchings, grabbing up a shotgun, or simply chaos. Enforcing our laws can have the most grave and serious consequence: the loss of freedom for the lawbreaker. Our Justice System, in place since the founding of our Constitutional nation, demands protections for THE PEOPLE (ultimately, laws are for the protection of ALL CITIZENS), and also many serious protections for the ACCUSED. Teams of lawyers seek every advantage for their clients.
Courts are where the charges are sorted out, and FACT is separated from FICTION. This is done by the presentation of proof and evidence; all is scrutinized by the court to make sure all parties are protected in their rights. The veracity of the evidence is mostly considered by juries of average citizens (sometimes, an accused may opt to have a judge alone decide the case). If the evidence does not support the charges brought, the accused is found NOT GUILTY, and he/she walks free. That’s our system.
If the evidence DOES fit the accusations, the accused is found GUILTY.
When politicians are involved, the knee-jerk claim will be that the legal accusation is “politically motivated,” a “witchhunt,” and indicates some sort of “two-tiered justice system.” This is not surprising; ALL criminals, when caught, can be depended upon to claim they are being unfairly treated, and falsely singled out by people “out to GET them.” Courts see this a thousand times a day, all across our land.
This suggestion of an “unfair” prosecution, of course, it that the accusations are FALSE, are groundless, and are just ‘made up’ in order to harass the accused, or in the case of politicians, a political opponent. It ceases being “LAWFARE” when the accused is found GUILTY. Then, it is simply the LAW being enforced against a lawbreaker.
Now, to a definitional error Sellers made. Sellers claims, “Once again for the record, I do not ENDORSE Trump,” then says, “I will vote for him …” The word “endorse” comes from putting your signature on the back … of a check for example, to approve a cash transfer. This shows you support and agree with the transaction. Therefore, when Sellers puts his signature on Trump’s backside, he is ENDORSING Trump. He may not want it known, may want to deny it (he certainly DOES try to deny it), but an endorsement is an endorsement. Sellers does not get to redefine words for his convenience, or to distance himself from his embarrassing shameful actions.
Jeff Harrison, Buffalo
