When Harry Reid says, “It’s not over,” it’s time to get a little worried. Readers are by now well aware that Harry Reid, lookin’ smug (and rather like a mobster) in dark suit and black sunglasses, had this to say on April 14 regarding the Bundy Ranch standoff:

Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over.  There is no question that there were a lot of things going on down there with breaking the law," Reid said. "And that is not over yet. We can't let that continue. So I'm sure it is not the end of it.

How eloquent; Reid’s rhetoric soars and smacks of the Founding Fathers, not shakedown artists  who call the shots in a hybrid Marxist/Fascist welfare state! 

Many have commented on the innumerable ironies of Reid’s statement, many of which center on the Federal Government’s audacious unwillingness to abide by many of its own laws.  In addition, plenty of patriots are in a bit of a dudgeon in regard to millions of illegal aliens who still do, with Reid’s express encouragement, exactly what Reid says Americans aren’t supposed to do: violate the law and walk away from it.

Here, however, I want to point out a few other things associated with Reid’s statement.

Harry’s dazzlingly hypocritical words prompt one to wonder: just when does he take things to be settled?

If someone is charged with a criminal offense, and then acquitted by a jury, matters with respect to the transactions and occurrences that were tried are settled, are they not?

What resolution of criminal matters can possibly be more conclusive, and more vital, to the functioning of American law?

So no federal legislator (or state, for that matter) has any justification at all, especially with respect to state criminal trials, in supposing that “not guilty” verdicts indicate anything other than that matters have been settled.

Anyone who is powerful enough to influence events in ways that are contrary to this principle, and does so, therefore reveals themselves to be someone who is willing to subvert pretty much the entire edifice of law, do they not?

With these thoughts in mind, here is Reid post-George Zimmerman verdict:

On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asked for the Justice Department to prosecute George Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday night in the killing of Trayvon Martin. “I think the Justice Department is going to take a look at this,” Reid told NBC’s Meet the Press. “This isn’t over with and I think that’s good. That’s our system, it’s gotten better, not worse” (emphasis added).

“This isn’t over.” 

Did Reid offer any rationale as to what charges could possibly be filed that would satisfy federal jurisdiction?  No, of course not, because there weren’t any -- and still aren’t in spite of racist AG Holder’s archaeological operations regarding Zimmerman’s life history. 

Nope, as usual Reid did not have, and therefore did not offer, any legal or evidentiary basis for his declamation “This isn’t over with and I think that’s good.”

It’s beyond creepy: the totally gratuitous use of such language in such an incendiary, volatile context pertaining to fundamental considerations of justice.

Harry really, really likes “it’s not over” language.

Here he is again on gun control: “I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know that the conversation is not over.”

“Not over.”

Millions of Americans are now wondering just what these words mean to Reid/Obama/Holder, and whether the source of power supporting them is the law, or something rather more tyrannical in nature.

It is with the above in mind that we should reflect very carefully when Rory Reid, who looks to me a bit like a space alien but for the otiose mustache, says:

I think most people care about their reputation and I think he’s been exposed as somebody that has broken the law. The Nevada Cattlemen Association, which is the trade organization that advocates for cattlemen in the state of Nevada—not even they support Cliven Bundy at this point. We believe in a country in which we are subject to laws and you can’t just ignore the laws we don’t like. I think clearly if state and local prosecutors look at this more closely, they’re going to find that he broke the law and he should be prosecuted.

Even if there were bases for such a trial and one occurred, why would anyone believe that the Reids would: respect a potentially adverse verdict, “walk the other way”, and declare things to be “over”?

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno.  You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.