I had a friend on Facebook just post this. Thought it was a pretty interesting take. For reference he is a republican law student.
I want to be clear, for anybody deeming last night in any way a Trump "victory" or who loved his "zinger" "...because you'd be in jail" or who is in any way, for any reason, still considering voting for this man:
The lowest part of the ugliest debate in American history was that threat to prosecute.
If a public servant commits some kind of malfeasance, we have a system for prosecuting such a crime, in a way which may not, I'll grant, be "non-partisan," or immune from some degree of corruption. HOWEVER, it is a system with myriad, multitudinous safeguards, separations of authority, independence, and judicious ascertaining of legal fact. That system, for better or worse, has functioned here, with respect to HRC. You may not like the outcome personally, you may think she gamed the system. It doesn't matter what you think, because absolutely nobody who was not part of the investigation can state with any authority that it came to the wrong conclusion. Because that conclusion is *legal* in nature: not "is HRC bad and stupid," but "Is there a legal case with which to prosecute her, which the evidence bears out any hope of success by going forward with?"
So when Trump says that he would "order the Attorney General to select a special prosecutor" and threatens in no uncertain terms that if successfully elected, he is intent on making sure this would result in HRC "being in jail," I want to dispense with the comparisons to Hitler, because that's facile, and the internet loves picking over such knee-jerk moves.
I want to talk about Sulla. I want to talk about Marius. I want to talk about Marc Antony, I want to talk about Octavian. We're talking about political tactics from the time where a real republic was upended, and finally came crashing down, because threats to political opponents *exactly* like Trump made last night were the hallmarks of the day. Hitler's system? That played out differently. "Win first under the guise of something legitimate, then kill everybody." But this threat - in open forum - was different. And harkens back to a different age altogether. Sulla, Marius, Octavian, and Antony. The men who killed the Roman Republic. You have to go back to *them* to find, in the Western tradition pertaining to democracies and republics and the men who endangered or ended them, a situation where the promise "If I win, then there will be retribution for opposing me" is enshrined in the normality of political discourse. Sulla, according to Plutarch, "made the streets flow with blood . . . many who had not any witness to say they had opposed him, only that by killing them Sulla pleased his adherents." Of Marius, any man "who did not greet him with salute or salutation was, by his men, to be murdered." Marc Antony is recorded by Cassius Dio to have promised Cicero, during the early days of the Second Triumvirate, that if he ever spoke out against him, he would "nail his head and hands to the Senate rostrum;" after Cicero delivered the Philippics against Antony's mismanagement, self-dealing, and philandering, Antony sent soldiers to his house, killed him, and did exactly that: nailed the head and hands of a political enemy to the speaking stage of the center of the Roman state, and the former shrine of its republican values.
It is an exercise in insanity to attempt to defend Donald Trump not only for his most recent incendiary remarks, but in light of this: his avowed method of conducting affairs. "If you're not with me, you're against me" is a far fall from the days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan having a scotch in the Oval Office and walking out with a compromise, but we've lost in this country the belief that politics is or ought to be about "compromise" at all. That's a place we need to get back to. But one way or another, we should all be able to agree that, in a presidential debate, when one of the candidates - standing in front of, no less, a wall plastered with the text of our Constitution itself - took us, in the political discourse of a democratic republic, to "If you're not with me, you're going to jail." That was not just a threat to prosecute, that was a threat to *proscribe.*
...*That* should be enough for anybody in the Trump camp who still values anything about what America is supposed to be to vote for somebody - anybody - else. Or stay home. And if you are so pissed off and angry at... whatever. Washington, Obama, the "East Coast/Establishment Types," the overall liberalization of social values, the inexorable tide of globalization... SO pissed off at those things that you still refuse to abandon Trump, then yes. I want this to be clear right now:
You are "deplorable."
Not because you are rhetorically lumped in with the "worst of the worst" of Trump's supporters (of which there are many)... but because you have opted to sacrifice the very notion that our country can do better than either Trump or HRC, by siding with a man who, rather than drive us to do better, is committed to tearing it all down for good.