The Unprecedented Indictment of a Former President (A Few Comments By Others), Part II

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.     

 

The Unprecedented Indictment of a Former President (A Few Comments By Me), Part I

I'll start with this.  President Trump has been hounded from the day he announced his candidacy for president.  No other president has been treated the way he has.  Remember the idea of a "honeymoon" for a president's first 100 days in office?  Take a look at the March 12, 2017 post ("The Deposing of an American President"), and you will see the various ways the Democrats were suggesting to remove Trump from office, including violent actions and military involvement.  This was less than two months into the Trump presidency.  

When those ideas (as set forth in that post) never came to fruition, the Dems came up with the Russian collusion hoax, the first BS impeachment, the second BS impeachment, the raid on Mar-a-Lago, and now the indictment.  I have zero doubt that the Democrats coordinated all these attacks on Trump.  

The fact that this is an unprecedented indictment of a former president is of no concern for the Democrats.  The Democrats do not care about precedent.  They do no care if their actions are good for the country.  The Democrats act by one "rule" only - the ends justify the means.  Recall when then Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said on the Senate floor when Mitt Romney was running for president, that he knew Romney did not pay taxes.  It was a complete lie, of course.  When asked years later if he wanted to apologize to Romney, because it was shown that Romney did pay taxes, Reid replied to this effect:  "he didn't win, did he?"  That was all that mattered.  Helping to defeat Romney and reelect Obama.  The truth be damned, because the ends justify the means for Democrats. 

Democrats never have a problem with taking unprecedented actions.  Obama criticized Supreme Court Justices who attended his State of the Union address, because he disagreed with their decision in the Citizens United case.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if they dared to rule on the Dobbs abortion case contrary to the way Schumer wanted.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi also did not care about precedent when she denied the minority party the right to select members of their choice to be on the January 6 committee.  Speaker Pelosi did not care about precedent when she rushed the second impeachment vote against Trump without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first.  Actual evidentiary hearings where the accused gets to present evidence in their defense.  So many unprecedented actions by the "ends justify the means" Democrats.

There is no doubt that we have two separate systems of justice in this country.  Can anyone seriously doubt that?  What happened to Hillary Clinton with regards to her misreporting the money she spent on "research" for the phony Steele dossier, which was used to target Trump for 2 1/2 years?  The Federal Election Commission fined her and the DNC $113,000.  Was she prosecuted by anyone?  Of course not.  Was her home raided?  Of course not.  Why isn't Bragg prosecuting her for her falsifying records, just like he is doing to Trump?  Was she prosecuted for having a private and unsecured email server in her home while she was Secretary of State, with (I imagine) a Top Secret security clearance?  Of course not.  Was she prosecuted over her destruction of possible evidence by destroying various electronic devices and deleting 33,000 emails?  Of course not.  Was the Clinton Foundation prosecuted for possible influence peddling when many donations were made while Hillary was Secretary of State - including from foreign powers?  Of course not.

How about Hunter Biden getting that cushy, high paying job at Burisma, for which he had zero experience?  His only "experience" was that his father was Vice President of the United States at the time.  Influence peddling?  Now, Hunter is a world class and world famous artist, with his paintings going for $500,000.  Who knew?  My guess...it is a money laundering scheme to buy influence with the president...from unknown buyers.  Funny how Hunter will not reveal the names of the buyers.  And, let's not forget Hunter's trip to China with his father, then the Vice President.  As I've said before, was it take your forty something year old to work day?  The laptop?  What about it?  Still awaiting a prosecution of Hunter and "the big guy." 

When Trump, and those at his rallies, would yell "lock her up" with regards to Clinton, I was greatly opposed.  I said what a bad idea it is to have our country start locking up political opponents...even though I believed Clinton was guilty of numerous crimes.  She was running for president against Trump, and Trump had no business saying "lock her up."  Now, we have a Democrat District Attorney indicting the leading Republican candidate for president against the sitting president of this DA's party.  Additionally, DA Bragg wants the trial to begin next January, just before the start of primary season.  An unprecedented indictment against your opposing party's possible candidate for president.  I am more than a little dismayed and disappointed by all those who favor this indictment and do not see the obvious political nature of it.  

I have now changed my position on indicting political opponents.  I want to see the Clintons indicted now.  I want to see the Bidens indicted now.  James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, says he has been contacted by two District Attorneys (one in Tennessee and one in Kentucky) who want information to assist them in the prosecution of Biden.  If Comer and the Republicans do not do so, then shame on them.  The result will be more Trump family members being indicted and more people affiliated with President Trump being indicted.  The Republicans need to make it clear that they will not sit idly by while the Democrats seek to destroy the Republican Party.

A final thought.  Biden ran as the great unifier.  Once in office, he has been anything but a unifier, with his nonstop attacks on Republicans and MAGA Republicans (who number in the tens of millions).  So we know that Biden is a liar.  However, he can redeem himself by pardoning Trump.  He would not only put an end to this divisive indictment, but he would show the American people that he believes they should be the ones who determine the next president.  He would demonstrate his belief in democracy, something he always claims to champion.