The recent testimony by Sally Yates to congress has made a number of democrat-leaning individuals rejoice. However, much as I dislike Trump, the testimony of Yates, and the reaction of ‘the Resistance,’ are quite troubling to me.
For some discussion on the situation, I recommend Robert Parry’s excellent article, Turning Gen. Flynn Into Roadkill. In short, Yates made numerous innuendo-style insinuations, and cited zero evidence. In this, she paralleled the entire Democrat approach to the ‘Russia’ investigation: make a lot of loud claims, never present evidence (claim it exists, but that it’s not for ‘you little people’ to know). However, this article fails to address a couple of important things about Yates and the Democrats in general.
First, Yates is not really trustworthy. Parry does acknowledge this, but he only used half the reasoning, namely:
Yates’s own motives might also deserve examination. Her behavior has the look of a partisan prosecutor who likely would have been in line for a top job under President Hillary Clinton. Would that influence her eagerness to twist facts to destroy Flynn and hurt Flynn’s boss?
But even before this, Yates was known as a partisan ally for the Democrat elites, who would not hesitate to obstruct justice. From wikileaks:
In other words, Yates was considered a safeguard against Clinton being indicted. It is worth noting that the FBI director has testified that Clinton broke the law with her private server. However, he argued that she may not have intentionally broke the law.
Of course, whether you intended to break the law doesn’t matter – unless you are Hillary, in which case the FBI director makes a special exception for you, and your ‘loyal women’ are held in position to ensure that you will not be indicted!
Given that Yates was trusted by Hillary’s allies to obstruct justice and block the indictment of a known criminal, why should we trust anything that Yates now has to say?
I really cannot emphasize this enough: Hillary’s campaign trusted Yates to subvert the law to protect Clinton. There is really no reason at all to think Yates has suddenly become a fair and even-handed dispenser of truth and justice, just because you happen to like what she has to say.
The second point the article does not mention is how troubling this is as a statement about the Democratic Party in general. They knew Hillary broke the law, and supported her anyway. They put loyalty to their party above the law. They install ‘trusted people’ in key places to ensure that their elites remain above the law. Does anyone truly believe the Democrats care about the law when it comes to Trump (although nobody has even said what law might have been broken; social media abounds with claims of ‘treason,’ but no concrete, ‘This is the specific statute that we accuse Trump or his administration of breaking,’ statements have been made)? Even if Trump did break the law, the Democrats do not care that Trump broke the law, but that he broke the law with an R next to his name instead of a D.
I cannot trust Yates or the Democrats as long as they continue to provide evidence that they put their party above the law.