General Discussion

Other Poster: "She didnt want to goto jail"

You: "Someone has to. Thousands already are. One visible person going to jail could be a game changer. And, you don't negotiate with terrorists."

Other Poster: "I don't think it should be her, for this"

You: "Somebody has to. Somebody has to take further risk."

You never once in that exchange took the opportunity to clarify that you aren't suggesting she should. If myself or anyone else took it that you were suggesting that maybe she should, that is your fault for not doing a good job of communicating your intended message.

And now that you've been called on your absurdity, you are backtracking and changing the argument to "but the Trump admin will just arrest her".

"Do we really think that the Trump administration can be trusted? They agreed to not arrest her? So they won't? I said you can't negotiate with terrorists."

The courts will defend her from arrest for contempt of Congress if she doesn't commit contempt of Congress. We've already seen the courts stick up for Mark Kelly and the other lawmakers that said not to follow illegal orders. We've seen the courts stick up for at least some of the people that have been unlawfully targeted by ICE. They stuck up for Comey, etc. The courts suck but they don't suck that bad.

She didn't "negotiate" with anyone. She showed up in accordance with THE LAW. That isn't a "compromise".

Someone is definitely being ridiculous here and its definitely not me.