Are Clinton and Trump Too Powerful to Touch?

by Salil Puri · January 22, 2016

Political luminaries, including Adams and Marshall, have long affirmed that the United States is a nation of laws, not men. When President Nixon resigned following his association with the Watergate crimes, Vice President Gerald Ford stated, “Our Constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men.”

Our government’s legitimacy rests on this principle. As citizens, we believe, at least to some degree, that even the mighty can not act with impunity. Celebrities get arrested. Politicians go to jail. War heroes pay their parking fines. As government employees, we recognize that rank has its privileges, but we trust that when the brass does bad things, they eventually get punished. When I was fighting in Afghanistan under General Petraeus, troops were getting cited for crimes such as adultery. I believed that barring some occasional exceptions, soldiers were generally held to the same standards. Legitimate organizations have to hold everyone accountable to the same laws.

About Salil Puri

is a member of the Psychological Operations Regiment, enlisting after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin with a quadruple major in History, Middle Eastern Studies, Government, and Psychology, later earning an MA in Security Policy. As a consultant for the Culper Group, Salil helps clients with strategic communication, focusing on identifying and neutralizing deception and disinformation. Visit www.TheCulperGroup.net or contact him via [email protected]

Also from Salil Puri

BECAUSE, FACTS DON'T TAKE SIDES

Your Subscription Supports Honest News Efforts

TRY 4 WEEKS FOR $1.99

Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

Antonio A
Trespass laws are an option and a ton of misdemeanors are never filed in the interest of justice. So I am not suprised that nothing came off it. If the jacket was used as a weapon, swing that thing at me and I'll tase you then cuff you. Property is kept as evidence or safekeeping. I am unsure if security detail were local or state licensed peace officers so there are too many varianles that would lead to other options.
Bearclaw
I don't see the point in continuing the back and forth. I appreciare the exchange. Take care.
Bearclaw
Making emotional statements like
Salil Puri
Well, since the government can just confiscate willy nilly, that's ok then, right? If the person Trump was speaking to was Secret Service, which is an assumption, then it's possible Brandenburg wasn't tested. Charges and an investigation would clear that up. "There is no difference between them and employers in the context of search and seizure and the law." No, private security are not tantamount to employers - employee agreements are employee agreements - they've been signed - they're contractual obligations - the protester here was not an employee of the Trump campaign so this is a Red Herring. That being said, employer agreements with the private sector that enforce confiscation of personal belongings are . An employer can ask you to leave, they can fire you, but they can't take away your property involuntarily (choosing to remain employed is voluntary). Your citations of people who have been arrested are false analogies - pushing people is against the law - THAT is what the arrest was for.
Bearclaw
Re: Bradenburg, since petty larceny did not occur (presumably), Trump's comment meeting the threshold of likely to incite would appear questionable. It turns out the security detail was led by the Secret Service. So all of this back and forth on private security is OBE. Obviously SS can confiscate if warranted, and this further minimizes the likelihood that Trump's comments would incite. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41059/trump-take-their-coats/