Underlying all the specific issues, accusations and charges against President Trump, there is a foundational debate as to whether the prosecution of President Trump is political. Most folks’ opinions on that subject break along partisan lines – although a majority of Americans believe that politics plays a role.
In terms of political bias influencing the Trump indictments, you do not have to be a fan or supporter of the former President (which I am not) to answer that question in the affirmative. You can do it based on experience, common sense, and objectivity.
The enabler of political prosecution is something called “prosecutorial discretion.” It is the power of prosecutors to decide to indict, or not – and when, where and how to do so – that makes a mockery of the “rule-of-law” claim that is so highly touted by the judicial class.
Laws provide a rationale, but it is people – usually politically biased people – who actually decide who gets prosecuted, or not. When the case-in-point is political, you can rest assured the decision to prosecute will be … political.
After more than 50 years of involvement in the political process at the grassroots in Chicago – including a number of investigations of vote fraud and voter intimidation – I can say without refutation that I have witnessed hundreds – perhaps thousands – of cases of vote fraud far worse than what several of the defendants in Fulton County, Georgia are accused of. Virtually none of them were ever indicted – even in cases where the evidence was overwhelming and convincing.
There was a reason why none of those individuals were never prosecuted, indicted or convicted. Politics. Elected Democrat machine prosecutors and judges used their “discretion” – not the rule-of-law – to dismiss the cases as a matter of routine.
Has such political bias influenced the cases and charges brought against Trump? Well duh! Of course it has. In fact, it would be impossible for the decision to indict to NOT be tainted by politics. The only question is how much political consideration played in the various decisions to indict – and the nature and severity of the specific charges.
The first question is whether Trump broke laws. And even if he appears to have done so, is the nature and scope of the various indictments commensurate with the alleged crimes and prosecutorial traditions? Or is Trump being singled out for especially harsh treatment based on political bias?
It is no coincidence that in every case brought against Trump, the prosecutors are elected or appointed to their positions as political partisans. They ALL represent the Democratic Party. They ALL operate in communities with overwhelming Democrat political populations – and predominantly Democrat jury pools.
While the various prosecutors claim that they do not coordinate, they are bonded by a natural conspiracy of self-interest. They do not have to meet in a backroom to know what to do individually in terms of their mutual political advantages. Their mutual mission is to “get Trump.”
You see the bias in the timing. How is it that these cases rose only on the eve of the 2024 presidential election, with all the indictments hitting like a cluster bomb? Normally, the Federal Election Law charge in the Manhattan case would have been adjudicated within the first year after the 2016 election when the alleged payoff to Stormy Daniels was made. That was seven years ago. So, why now when Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President? That should be an easy question to answer.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is pursuing a case that totally incorporates the Fulton County issues. In such cases, the local prosecution often yields to the federal case. They do not normally run the same prosecutorial claims in tandem. It is not the American way to put a defendant on trial on essentially the same charges at the same time.
The federal cases have come to the peak in terms of indictments in an election year in which the defendant is running for President gains the people and the party representing the prosecution. There are legitimate questions as to why the Department of Justice waited almost three years to commence the investigation.
The dates that prosecutors have requested to start trials seem strategically selected to have the greatest impact on the Trump’s participation in the Republican primaries – with the Georgia date just days before super Tuesday.
Apart from determining Trump’s innocence or guilt on the various charges, were the prosecution and proposed trial dates strategically selected to cripple Trump’s ability to campaign and strip away some of his financial resources for legal fees and other costs?
One key question is whether Trump is being treated differently than others facing similar indictments. The answer to that is, “yes.” And there are lots of examples – the most notable of which is the fact that trial dates are being influenced by the timing of the election. Each of the prosecutors is trying to get their case in front of a jury before the 2024 election – when any negative impact would be maximized.
Also, were the cases and their timing intentionally designed to foment a flurry of hyperbolic reporting in the court-of-public-opinion? In other words, to intensify the drumbeat of political propaganda against Trump and the Republicans? The timing certainly accomplished that. The only debatable point is whether it was intentional. Since all the timing issues were at the discretion of the prosecutors – and intended to depart from norms — it is hard to imagine it NOT being politically strategic.
Whether Trump is guilty of the crimes for which he is charged or not, is not the point. He may still be treated unfairly based on the political biases and motivations of the prosecutors. Would all those Democrat prosecutors and law enforcement-run agencies be so aggressive if the target was not Trump – or if he were not running for President?
I suspect that most Americans have already answered that question for themselves. This commentary is meant for those who might not have – or may still retain some objectivity. Obviously, I believe that politics has played a significant role even if Trump bears some culpability.
So, there ‘tis..