Justice practiced with selective outrage solicits injustice and disregard for itself through blatant tolerated improprieties. The process contaminated by selective exclusions of violations corrupts the integrity of legal accountability for all.

1. Vindicated Outrage
Exonerated Injustice
Justice is a term which most have a concept of its definition and perception of its application but few can
describe the unspecified fluidity of the circumstances submitted for a determination of if justice was
served. The concept is elusive but the perception is evident as the circumstantial understanding has
neither form nor presentation committing to a firm unwavering objectivity. So all can surmise but none
can declare its description but only its applied characterizations. Arguably the primary element is
integrity unbiasedly applied lending legitimacy to the determination appearing as a degree of fairness.
So justice is not fairness, justice is a result of fairness applied properly. Justice is the byproduct of the
process produced by a fair conclusion. Therefore, justice is always on trial applied to the circumstances
which must be judged or decided. The consensus of penalty or restitution regulates the level of
satisfaction if justice has been served. Any deviation or assault on the anticipated recourse of
compensatory or punitive consequences scrutinizes the estimation of justice rendered.
If deficient, injustice has been acquitted and pardoned by the double jeopardy of seldom is a second
chance afforded a first impression. Justice is indeed blind when forfeitures of its integrity is allowed to
circumvent reasoning of the factual analysis. The puppets of exploitation and duplicity fraudulently
exercise their manipulations under the guise of authority protected by the veil of justice thus receiving a
vicarious immunity of presumptive objectivity. The rules of impartiality is a crime fighter that should
fight it equally wherever it finds it and whoever is committing it.
The degrees of potential damage or impact should prioritize the urgency of its concentration or
discourse. The absconding of policy and practice makes justice a fugitive especially in a system built on a
bill of inalienable principles definitive of its identity. The flag of justice must never wallow in the mud of
impropriety to be respected above the tarnishing reproach of being compromised. A pattern of legal
exemptions, selective indifference, or neglected allegations KO’s justice before it can enter the ring to
throw a fair one. This is the political fight fixing we all have ringside seats to witness where the event is
staged with the outcome rigged before the contest has started.
The unfolding experience is an episode with the illusion of a current development but is actually a
delayed exhibition of a prior determination yet to happen reconciling the event to the predetermination.
For example, hypothetically speaking if a prosecutor in a very high profile case is accused of personal
misconduct via a romantic liaison posing a conflict of interest. The illicit relationship would have no
bearing on the defendants actions which occurred years before which are not in question or denial.
Furthermore, the sneaky link would not seem to be of material intent for prosecuting but instead on a
parallel course of personal convenience or indiscretion. Nevertheless, in the high stakes world of law and
politics it is undeniably an unforced turnover, an error of judgement giving them something to talk
about. Still, stipulating to the concerns generated from this debacle of distractions and distortion is a
panoramic application of justice if justice is the purpose.
No judicial or government body saw fit to pursue accountability although many have the authority but
not the fearlessness to topple the allegation but vehemently pursue the prosecutor who did. It appears
to be obstructionist tactics to protect the fixed agenda which initiated the inquest. That is not the height
of the hypocrisy which should vindicate outrage but the extenuating allegations of breaches of justice or

2. public trust and conflicts of interest based on the same principles but to a magnified degree regarding
damage or impact.
A certain presidential crime family allegations fall into this same category. Fine, if a determination has
been made that a credible or significant allegation exist an investigation of fact finding inquiry is logical.
Protection should not be afforded these claims while in pursuit of the American public’s interest, unless
the public’s interest is not the objective. Conflict of interest, unfairness, and public interest are the
reasons put forward. But what about other obvious collateral concerns of monumental ramifications.
Political gerrymandering of voting districts which have been ruled unconstitutional have repeatedly
defied court orders to rectify them. It is blatant election interference which if it had no impact why
would it be unconstitutionally committed. It is a way to circumvent voting rights aside from the various
blatant party politics subverting opposing votes to sequester policy and power. For example, the
confiscation of protocol, policy, and practice when specifically directed results in a Supreme Court
ideology controlling society for twenty to thirty years.
The repeal of abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights are a direct result of the same actions
complained about except for who the perpetrator may be. Who is committing it seems to be the
deciding element instead of if it is being committed. Financial affiliations with foreign governments is
perhaps the most glaring omission and selective exclusion of appearances of impropriety representing a
bowling ball under the rug concealment. A purported non-administration member of a political family
has foreign dealings resulting in a congressional hearing.
Fine, except for these accusations of foreign profiteering are peanuts compared to the multi-billion
dollar infidelity of a different actual member of the White House nucleus directly flirting with many
conflicts including of interest in an area associated with his then official scope of duties. Not to mention
a quid pro quo suspicion of a weapons deal brokered or return to office retainer. If returned to the same
position would that also be move along folks there is nothing here to see. No dalliance of forbidden fiscal
flirtations or policy nepotism to see here despite the billions personally secured in the balance.
Furthermore, for the future of politics and democracy to merge at such a critical time, how could
Supreme Court Justices despite professional courtesy not be scrutinized when their actions do not
recluse them from suspect affiliations and activities. If felons cannot cohort with other felons is it a
sound practice for high court judges to maintain dubious associations and rogue gratuities? While on the
subject, does not a Supreme Justice’s spouse in the same household with open and active participation
in a chapter of American shame not draw concern?
Of course if not by marriage or their actions then by excited utterances of those involved in the Capital
assault declarations stating that they had an inside person on the court if they could get it before them.
There appears to be sufficient probable cause evidence to support this claim. However, if this does not
incriminate this judge, it perhaps does another judge which would conceivably rabbit hole the extent of
these assertions of a fix. Point is why wouldn’t these other incidents of conflict, malfeasance, or
criminality at least meet the threshold of inquiry as the prosecutor’s romantic conflict case given their
national and international ramifications.
Injustice is a strong recruitment for further injustice to careen off accountability like a roller derby bully
catapulting past the legalities established to protect against just such actions. None of the mentions in

3. this article are clandestine operations of the most subtle nature insidiously infiltrating our society,
politics, and government. Instead, they are blatant exonerations of injustice discharging the continuity of
accountability in exchange for unethical or borderline seditious power grabs by hook or crook.
Where justice is absent vindicated outrage should be present. Like momma them use to say, what’s good
for the goose is good for the gander. This is especially true for equal application of the law properly and
indiscriminately applied to be the byproduct of the process producing a fair conclusion by an equal
application. They say justice is blind but I am more inclined to believe justice must be blind and stupid
not to see this or think we don’t see the thumb of injustice on its scales.
P.S. This is the same ideological argument regarding systemic racism, unbiased fairness equally applied.