The indictment of "former president Donald Trump is a sad day for the country, with political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive." (WSJ 3/31/23 editorial) As I said in Part I, none of that is a concern for Democrats.
The New York Times has a habit of letting Op-Ed writers speak for their editorial board. Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen, wrote an Op-Ed in the 4/5/23 edition of the paper. After laying out why they believe the case against Trump is "strong," they ended with this: "...one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him." Any other New Yorker? What other New Yorker is a former president of the United States? I think they call that "ignoring the elephant in the room."
"The largest criminal investigation in history isn't to find those responsible for 100,000 deaths a year from fentanyl but to track down every single person who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, regardless of whether they committed any violence. The message: if you are on the political side of those in power, you get released; if you are a dissident you get prosecuted." (Op-Ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein in the 4/6/23 WSJ) Let me clear. I never did anything but condemn the events of January 6. But the dual system of justice in our country is something that greatly bothers me.
In the 4/5/23 Los Angeles Times, an Op-Ed by LZ Granderson said this: "The allegation is that Trump and his company falsely reported the hush money as a payment for legal services, rather than as reimbursement to the lawyer who paid Daniels. Specificially, 11 counts are related to invoices from the lawyer, 11 related to checks from Trump and 12 related to ledger entries." So much to say about this. Trump paid that money as part of a civil settlement. In no way was it a campaign expenditure. Even it is considered to be such, he should merely be fined, as was Hillary Clinton for her misreporting. (See Part I)
Additionally, 34 counts? Really? I have always found this type of overreach by the government to be heavy handed. All these counts basically arise out of a single act. But we know why they overcharge. The idea is to be able to threaten the defendant with a million years in prison. Slight exaggeration, Trump would "only" face 136 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Even an innocent defendant can be frightened into taking a plea for a shorter sentence.
Here are a couple of excerpts from letters to the editor, in the 4/3/23 WSJ. "If Mr. Trump broke laws - no matter how petty - he must be subject to prosecution and public recriminations for doing so." Maybe we can also get Trump for jaywalking. I wonder how many excuses the writer made for the Clintons and the Bidens. Here's another: "Maybe prosecute the people who avoid paying taxes or those who ripped off their fellow Americans with fraudulent Covid claims. Or, here's a novel idea, do something about illegal immigration and school violence. Indicting Mr. Trump is the least of this country's problems and smacks of "gotcha" politics." But what fun is prosecuting real criminals when they can go after Trump, a man they hate more than they do Putin, Xi and the Ayatollah combined.
The editorial in the 4/5/23 WSJ ended with this (as will I): "The question that keeps smacking us upside the head is whether this case would have been brought against any defendant not named Donald Trump. It's hard to avoid answering no." That pretty much says it all. Anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment