What's your [independent] opinion on WH violation against Comey?

If a 12 year old can be charged with murder, 71 year old Presidents shouldn't be able to claim ignorance of the law to justify a behavior.

— Steve Redmond (@sjredmond) June 9, 2017

Do you agree with the tweet above?

Ignorance of the law has turned into a significant and growing issue, mostly for those who don't study law. Whether students or young adults, unless they've had some education in law, they are essentially ignorant subjects of it. This dynamic has helped to feed today's prison problem in the United States. Every year, new laws take effect in municipal, state and federal jurisdictions.

Back to the tweet. How much law education do we think POTUS has had? Presuming none, we can still be sure that he does have, in addition to his official education, access to top of the line on-the-job business education that includes some law, and as much personal access as he's ever needed to the facilitators and practitioners of law through business dealings and financial privilege. He has a lifetime of exposure, in positions of influence, to the way companies are run in and around the law. . . a lifetime of training in how to communicate with and about those around and subservient to him in a way that keeps him out of trouble.

How could he then possibly claim ignorance of the inappropriate behavior that led to Comey being fired?

Independence can have a very sour sensation

Often, a person that is politically independent can be associated with a career position or workplace environment that requires consideration beyond any partisan ideal.

In such cases, a person has greater responsibility than the norm to remain independent of mind, regardless of their vote, which maintains an ability to ethically serve in their respective career position or workplace environments. An observer wouldn't always know, yet this is a trait that can sometimes be observed, such as in James Comey. The Guardian's Tom McCarthy wrote a profile on Comey earlier this year that delves into the path he's traversed throughout his life that led him to this awkward, albeit temporary, judgement he's under today.

Not everyone is concerned with ethic. Partisan politics can become brutal when a quantity of people choose to hard-line one side or another. It seems that hard-lining is the easiest, reactionary method of gaining the attention needed to pass some legislative measure or avoid one. At times, it can seem that the only goal of any near-sighted Party loyalty is chaos. Because Party loyalty is an effective antithesis of consensus, it can be distressing to any unity . . . be that unity an image or a state of mind.

Except for the kind of strict Party loyalty that feeds the more vicious everyday banter on social sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. That could be considered a different story a loyalty that breeds trouble. Unreal allegations and innuendos pervade the experience. It's no-holds-barred because of the ambiance of social entertainment. It struggles to present an accurate image. So much is fake. Yet, it's real because it's the world of so many. The day's news is increasingly absorbed via social updates and inappropriate banter, while simultaneously these platforms are the lands of least consensus and most fake news, slick 'community' dontchya-thinks and risk of social alienation on a greater scale than ever before possible.

In the case of legal proceedings, such as the current Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of James Comey, strict Party loyalty could be regarded as a flaw congruent with the depth of loyalty to any one political party. Mind us, a flaw that former FBI Director Comey has a reputation of keen awareness to, and avoidance of, all in the public interest.

More Weight in the Impeachment Ring

Since 2016 there has been talk of impeachment. Donald Trump was still an independent candidate when signs began to show that made some watchers wary of any eventual win for political office . . . much less on the greatest level.

That was preliminary, and certainly indicative of how difficult (or impossible) it could be for media-- public or not-- to tactfully guide the new-style experience. The presidential race of 2016 had a different appearance than we've become accustomed to witnessing, born of several factors we'll look into as we go along here at Independent Voter. One aspect of this change had been occurring long before 2016, and had nothing to do with Trump. Our notions of political correctness, free speech and how we should relate to one another essentially fell apart during a trying economic recession.

Still . . . talk of impeachment

The serious low rumbling has been heard almost since POTUS took office. There was an immediate swoop on our healthcare security (although simultaneous relief of a new financial burden). There was the go-ahead on Dakota. There is too much interest in dismantling federal regulations regarding domestic manufacturing, and-- of course-- the bear-down on undocumented immigrants. These are only a few of the actions taken from his new position since winning his bid for our highest office. There's the matter of his Twitter communications. He is a person, after all. Isn't that the gist? Twitter is his way of 'getting the truth out', or some similar purpose statement. Correct us if we're wrong on that one.

There have been all these developments and more. There are "crimes and misdemeanor" lists! Ultimately, the latest Russia developments have some House Democrats tweeting about the possibility of impeachment. Impeachment talks are falling off fingers at an accelerated rate and it's not unusual to hear reactionary statements that include the word "impeachment". Maybe there's something to it.

Occasional Hurdles with Independent Voting

HuffPost author Kicker details some drawbacks associated with independent voting:

Is the System Unfair to Independent Voters? | HuffPost

IV TAKE:

It can be tough to hold out sometimes, especially if there are important issues coming up that are close to you and actions are originating in the realm of conventions to which you don't have access as one who would vote independently in subsequent elections of the term candidacies.

It's good that political party switching is a thing . . . times change, ideas change, people change with them. Be as independent as you can be while willing to approach the proverbial line here and there as a means to an end.

Just Say No - Leave a Party that Threatens Your Well-Being (or that of others)

Are you an official political party member? Maybe a casual hanger-on to one of the major two political platforms today (and which have dominated U.S. American politics since practically the beginning)?

Republican? Democrat? 'Reform'? America's Party, perhans? The New Black Panthers. The Legal Marijuana Now Party. Communist Party USA. (Oh wow, I had no idea! . . . No WONDER people are afraid :D . . . just joking with youuuu :D )

There are a lot of political parties! I've seen entire lists well before today in performing general research over the years as I've become more involved. What I've noticed about most of them is at least one major pitfall to any serious association or affiliation with them  . . . at least one thing that makes me go "hmm" and hope that everyone reads everything they sign up for and only sign up after much consternation from a standpoint of utmost ethical consideration.

One of them is an officially-formed political party of "independents". Of course, this isn't even possible . . . not really. . . especially not on the level it's being done, which (as I've noticed about many of the perimeter parties) smacks of serious fantasies of domination over the direction and personal choices of the populace.

What do you think it takes for a candidate to remain independent and unaffiliated with any self-interested political party?