
<p>There is no doubt that Trump complains a LOT about being unfairly persecuted by Democrat prosecutors and judges throughout the judicial system. ; In his typically pugnacious style, Trump calls them “crooks” and “political hacks” who are out to block him from returning to the Oval Office. ; According to Trump, it is all a grand conspiracy – the worst in American history.</p>



<p>On the other hand, the never-Trumpers say he is guilty as hell and should be punished to the max – and even beyond. ; In their view, Trump should be disqualified to hold any office in America – and spend the rest of his life behind bars. ; There is no sating the obsessed Trump-hating resistance movement’s taste for political blood.</p>



<p>But does Trump have a point? ; Are all those court cases just the rule-of-law in action – or are there political underpinnings? ; Are laws being employed to achieve justice – or to disrupt and destroy a political campaign? ; Are they all connected by mutual interest or a desire to interfere with Trump’s prospect of reelection? ; And why DO so many folks believe that Trump is being subjected to unfair prosecution?</p>



<p>Pushing aside Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, and his opponents’ sanctimonious narratives, is there any indication that some or all of Trump’s court cases may be motivated and pursued so aggressively for purely political reasons?</p>



<p>Let us first look at the big picture in detail. What would lead Trump to say such things &#8230; and so many Americans to believe him?</p>



<p>1. All the cases have been brought by Democrat prosecutors – some of whom had campaigned on a promise to “get Trump.” With the exception of Florida, all the cases are in Democrat strongholds, in which judges and juries &#8212; both trial and grand juries &#8212; are composed predominantly of Democrats. Most folks know that prosecutors have great discretion, and they can get a grand jury indictment of a ham sandwich – as the saying goes. Political bias and enormous discretionary power raise legitimate questions of fairness and political bias.</p>



<p>2. The unprecedented number of cases against Trump suggests two possible political motives. They take him off the campaign trail and they cost him tens of millions of dollars in legal fees – diminishing the time and money he has for campaigning. Those outcomes are beyond refutation and widely reported across all media. It also suggests what I call a “conspiracy of self-interest” in which people with common interests follow similar strategies without formally conspiring. Taking Trump to court can be seen as an overarching political strategy in which operatives intuitively know what to do.</p>



<p>3. The timing of the cases strongly suggests the possibility of political strategy. They have all been piled up to hit their peaks at the most critical times in the political season – after being essentially ignored for years. Is that just coincidence? To be specific:</p>



<p></p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>The alleged encounter with <strong>E. Jean Carroll</strong> happened 28 years ago, and yet no legal action was taken until Trump was running for President. It first came to public attention in her 2019 memoir – timed to the 2020 campaign.</li>



<li>The <strong>Campaign Finance Case</strong> is the result of alleged actions taken four years ago. Such cases are usually dispatched fairly quickly by administrative action by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) – and generally are not criminal cases.</li>



<li>Special Counsel Jack Smith’s <strong>January 6<sup>th</sup> </strong>and<strong> White House Documents cases</strong> were not commenced by the Department of Justice for more than two years following the events – and not until Trump was running for reelection. Smith appears to be violating two DOJ policies. Department guidelines forbid timing such legal actions with an eye on an election &#8212; which is exactly what the Special Counsel is doing in terms of requesting trial dates. This would also be a stark exception to the timing of such cases, which usually take years from start to finish. It is obvious the warp speed approach has everything to do with the election. Smith is close to violating another DOJ rule that shuts such investigations down on the eve of an election – either 60 or 90 days prior. The timing is also subject to another unresolved question. Does the 60 or 90 days count back from Election Day or the earliest early voting date – which is in September. In short, everything Smith is doing seems to be designed to have the greatest impact on the election. That puts political interests ahead of an impartial legal process.</li>



<li>The <strong>Georgia Vote Fraud Case</strong> was not brought for almost four years following the events of January 6, 2021, and the controversial phone call between Trump and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. Again, the timing seems to be more related to the upcoming election than the events or normal court calendar issues.</li>



<li>The <strong>Fake Electors Case</strong>. Same thing. A long wait and then a sudden prosecution in the middle of an election.</li>



<li>Efforts to take <strong>Trump off the ballot</strong> happened long after he made clear his intent to run for reelection. Those efforts could have commenced four years ago – more closely aligned with the effort to keep Trump off the ballot as the primary objective of the second impeachment. Again, the case seems to be timed for maximum impact on the election.</li>
</ol>



<p>None of these cases have been pursued at more appropriate times. ; The Department of Justice did not pursue Trump following the events of January 6, 2021, even as it was pursuing hundreds of others involved – and not until Trump was preparing for another run. ; After prolonged delays in all these cases, prosecutors are suddenly in a rush-to-judgment clearly timed to the election. ;</p>



<p>The aggressiveness of the various prosecutions seems to corollate to the increasing possibility of a Trump reelection. It is hard to believe that all the cases piling on at the strategically critical point in the election cycle are coincidences.</p>



<p>4. And what about the cases themselves? Have the cases been overcharged? And have the judgments of the courts – where decisions have been rendered – been excessive? (1) In the E. Jean Carroll Case, Trump was found “liable” for defamation based on his claims of innocence of sexually assaulting the New York writer in an upscale department store. Her claim of rape was dropped. Even considering it was a second offense of defamation, most legal experts thought the $90 million judgment was excessive to the crime and to other similar cases. Whether intended or not, the huge penalty impacted Trump’s ability to fund his campaign. It had political implications, especially in view of the enormous amount. (2) The Corporate Fraud Case raises a lot of questions. Why was it filed in a way that precluded a jury? It has been reported that the Trump case is the only one in which the usual “victims” did not lose any money. And the almost half a billion dollar fine (with a daily interest payment of $117,000) and the ban on doing business in New York have been described as unprecedented. That literally means Trump was NOT treated according to judicial norms. The question is, why?</p>



<p>5. Are there indications of Unequal treatment? In the Documents Case, both Biden and Trump knowingly took and retained classified documents for personal use. Both acts were illegal. Trump is charged and Biden was not. Yes, there are significant differences in the cases – which naturally lead to Trump’s more severe prosecution. But that does not seem to be sufficient reason to NOT prosecute Biden at all. In fact, Special Counsel Robert Hur clearly stated that Biden broke the law. His ONLY reason for not indicting Biden is that his age and memory loss would make it hard to win a conviction. And of course, no trial could commence until after Biden left the presidency.</p>



<p><strong>Summary</strong></p>



<p>This commentary is not a defense brief for Trump’s innocence in any of the cases, but merely to suggest that there can be legitimate reasons why good people can suspect the motives of the prosecutors and be sympathetic to Trump’s view of political persecution. ; It helps to explain why in the face of so many legal entanglements, Trump can remain competitive with Biden – even outpolling him.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Why do so many people believe Trump is being politically persecuted?
