President Trump has a lot of folks on the left who really, really hate him. They totally abandon the American justice system’s foundation that a person is innocent until convicted in a court-of-law. They say – without equivocation that Trump is guilty, guilty, guilty of every infraction that can conjure up – and that no matter how minor the infraction, he should be subjected to the most extreme punishment.
We need to remember that from the time Trump was elected, the left launched an unprecedented Resistance Movement – the main purpose of which, by their own words, was to never allow Trump to be “normalized” as President. The calls for impeachment rose in the days shortly after his election – and before he was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. On the day after his inauguration, Democrats introduced the first bill of impeachment.
During most of his presidency, the left successfully proffered outrageous conspiracy theories against Trump – mainly focused on the phony Steele Dossier and conspiring with Russia in the meddling in the 2016 election. Both his impeachments seemed more political than justified.
Democrats, left-wing media, and entrenched left-wing bureaucrat establishment were out to get Trump from Election Day 2016 to today. That is beyond refutation. The various prosecutors made no secret of the desire to “get Trump.”
In noting that, I am not absolving Trum of a crime, he may have committed. On that question, we have to await the outcomes of the various cases. And I see Trump as his own worst enemy in terms of his excessively hostile and provocative language. But one bad behavior does not justify opposing bad behavior.
Trump and his more ardent followers claim that the former President is an innocent man who is being pursued by aggressive, politically motivated, out-of-control prosecutors – the victim of prosecutorial persecution.
I write this commentary as a person who has never been a fan of Trump. I have previously opined that he has damaged the Republican Party in terms of voter popularity. I hope he will not be the Republican standard-bearer in 2024. However, my foundational conservative principles demand that the justice system of the Republic operate as much as possible with fairness and justice on all sides.
That is why I have been critical of the massive and unprecedented political, media, and legal campaign that has been mounted by those on the left. I have no problem with Trump being held accountable for any illegal things he may have done – big things or little things. That means things that have been FAIRLY prosecuted and adjudicated in a court-of- law. I further believe that he should be indicted for clear evidence of possible lawbreaking – but NOT based on prosecutorial excesses or abuses. Trump is not a ham sandwich – and should not be indicted just because it is easy.
That means we have to examine the various cases being investigated against issues of legitimacy, fairness, and appropriateness in each of the cases – and the relationship between them. In other words, is Trump being treated fairly by prosecutors, or is he the victim of a coordinated, excessive, and politically partisan prosecution? In other words, is the “establishment” out to get him?
Looking at the various cases being pursued against Trump, it does seem that there is arguably an unprecedented excessiveness and aggressiveness in the pursuit of charges.
Stormy Daniels Case
The Stormy Daniels Case is the first case to result in an indictment. By all measures it is at least the weakest of cases against Trump — and being pursued on unique and novel interpretation and application of the law. The case itself is relatively minor relative to the other cases involving Trump – and the attempts to elevate it to a jailable offense are inappropriate.
Even the anti-Trump folks are critical of this case on two basis – first that it should not be the initial case to reach indictment since it could weaken other cases. Others on the left believe that the case is wrongly prosecuted – and is more likely than not to result in an acquittal. That would be a disaster for those who want to see Trump punished severely.
Georgia Vote Case
The prosecutor in this case is arguing that Trump attempted to coerce public officials – especially the Governor and Secretary of State– to undertake illegal actions to flip the vote in Georgia and award the presidential electors to Trump.
The case hangs on the meaning of his telephone request for the Governor to find 11,780 votes to change the outcome. The interpretation by the prosecutor and the anti-Trump media is that he was calling for the Georgia officials to make up votes that were never caste.
But that call is not necessarily solid evidence. Trump can easily argue that he believed there were thousands of illegally caste votes for Biden – and he wanted to find at least 11,780 of them.
The Georgia case will be harder to prove in a court-of-law than it is being pursued in the court-of-public opinion, where facts are superseded by opinion and biases.
The Mar-a-Lago Documents Case
The improper possession of White House files is a misdemeanor that can result in a civil fine – and often no judicial action at all. This case is more problematic based on Trump’s refusal to release all the documents – and suggestions that he may have committed obstruction of justice.
It is a messy case, but even at its worse is not likely to land Trump in the hoosegow. The case puts Attorney General Merrick Garland in a difficult position. It can be argued that the fact that they found documents – including top secret documents – in the position of President Biden – demands a certain level of equivalency – even though Biden returned the documents and Trump has not.
But there is a political reality with which Garland has to deal. If he were to indict the Republican candidate for President and allow his likely opponent – and the person who appointed Garland – off the hook, the political implications could be very damaging to the Department of Justice. The difference in the cases would be subordinated to the similarities – and the impression of gross political bias. Garland could credibly be accused of meddling in the 2024 presidential election, unlike any other U.S. Attorney General since John Mitchell during the Watergate scandal.
The January 6th Case
In the left-wing court-of-public-opinion, Trump is determined to be guilty of insurrection … a coup attempt … and an ongoing plan to steal a future election. Politically, this is a big deal for Democrats and the left-leaning media, but not the open-and-closed case they portray in the press.
It is true that more than a thousand people have been arrested for various crimes associated from entering the Capitol Hill Building – including trespassing, vandalism, theft, assault and battery, and a variety of lesser crimes. These are the kind of charges that are commonly associated with a riot.
A hand full of the thousands of assembled protestors have been convicted of promoting an insurrection – but legally, those convictions do not make the larger event an insurrection. That is clearly established by the less serious charges against the vast majority of the rioters.
One can easily criticize Trump for his reckless language and his failure to more expeditiously call on the rioters to cease and desist – and go home. But that is not criminal conduct as defined in law. The Special Counsel will not find it easy to put together an indictment of Trump based on his actions on January 6, 2021.
This is another case where a court-of-law and the court-of-public-opinion have very different views of criminality. In the former, it is merely a matter of public opinion driven by mendacious narratives advanced by a grossly biased media. In the latter, prosecutors have to meet a number of legal requirements and reach a high level of evidence to reach a conviction. That court-of-law has protections for the accused that the court-of-public does not have.
Overview
In addition to looking at each case individually, the most disturbing aspect may be the apparent coordination between the various prosecutorial agencies. We see that in the debate over which case goes first. The political establishment is obviously strategizing a means for stacking the cases in such a manner as to cumulatively create the most anti-Trump results possible across the board. That does not indicate fealty to the law – but the influence of politics. The coordination is prima facie evidence of politicization.
Many on the left openly admit that they hope that the various cases, themselves – apart from outcomes – will damage Trump’s political … will consume time that would otherwise be devoted to campaigning … and will further sully his reputation. That, alone, is an abuse of the justice system.
These actions give the best support for Trump’s claim that he is the victim of a judicial establishment out to get him based more on politics than justice. It disturbingly suggests a prosecutorial conspiracy.
If American justice is founded on how popular a person might be – or how his political views offend one side of the political and philosophic divide – then America is taking on that practice of a banana republic. And that should scare any freedom-loving citizen regardless of political views.
So, there ‘tis.
Author’s Note: This commentary was written just prior to the indictment. Rather than speculate, the next commentary will be following the release of the indictment and the specific charges.