By FRANK MIELE | REAL CLEAR POLITICS
Here’s what I dream of Donald Trump saying when he stands trial on bogus charges proffered by his political opponents: “I do not recognize this court’s right to try me … I do not recognize my action as a crime.”
Those are the fighting words of industrialist Hank Rearden when he was put on trial for ignoring an unjust law in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.” Although the circumstances of the cases differ, Rearden is a perfect avatar of Donald Trump, as both larger-than-life men are persecuted by the justice system for seeking to pursue their own self-interest and for refusing to surrender to government oppression.
Self-interest is central to the Objectivist philosophy of Rand, who grew up in Russia and witnessed first-hand the oppression of free thought and free enterprise following the 1917 Communist revolution. Her masterpiece, “Atlas Shrugged,” is the ultimate roadmap to how American democracy can be subverted by leftist bureaucrats and a corrupt media to destroy some individuals and intimidate the rest.
In the novel, Rearden has created a unique metallic alloy that carries his own name. Rearden Metal is far superior to steel and was in high demand by contractors, but tyrannical government regulations prohibited Rearden from selling to customers of his own choice. He ignored the government’s warnings and sold to one of the few honest businessmen left in the country. That meant he had broken the law, and because of his stature and reputation for excellence, the government prosecuted him as a warning to others that they dare not pursue their own self-interest, too.
Rearden epitomizes the essence of individualism, striving to achieve his goals despite societal pressure. As an industrialist, he prioritizes his innovation and accomplishments, unapologetically pursuing personal success. His trial underscores the struggle between individual rights and the perceived interests of society, reflecting Rand’s championing of individualism.
Similarly, Trump’s refusal to accept the election results turns on his deep sense of individualistic ambition, his willingness to challenge societal norms, and his determination not to surrender his principles, even at the expense of public ridicule, political persecution, and now potentially years in prison. But you can’t view the 2020 election in a vacuum.
Trump was no different than Rearden in fighting what he knows is a rigged system. For the preceding five years, Trump had been the victim of a series of vicious attacks by the Deep State and the media who never really accepted him as president. So Trump had no reason to accept the election results parroted by the same actors who had already tried to destroy him multiple times.
And now, two and a half years after the 2020 election, as Trump has a fighting chance of returning to the White House in the greatest political comeback in history, his enemies have come for him again, with three separate indictments and soon to be a fourth.
The four-count indictment most recently brought against Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith is intended to make a victory in 2024 nearly impossible. The Deep State in this case represents the entrenched bureaucracy of the federal government as well as the individual states’ election officials. This is the same Deep State that gathered up 51 national security officials to sign a statement prior to the 2020 election that falsely claimed that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of Russian disinformation.” It had none of them. No wonder Trump was disinclined to accept their conclusions that the election was secure and fair. Trump sought to prove his concerns about the legitimacy of the 2020 election by pursuing a vigorous legal strategy as was guaranteed to him under the First Amendment’s right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice is determined to deny that right to Donald Trump, and by extension to the rest of us. You either agree with the government’s interpretation of election results or else you risk going to jail. The indictment brought against Trump acknowledges that everyone has a First Amendment right to speak their minds and even to “formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means,” but it then avers that Trump’s right to believe he won the election is abrogated by a string of court losses and equally pessimistic assessments from so-called experts.
Here’s where it gets interesting, and where the Department of Justice has overstepped. The four counts in the indictment are based on what prosecutor Jack Smith calls three conspiracies: “A conspiracy to defraud the United States” by seeking to stop the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021; “a conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified; and “a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.”
All of these alleged conspiracies and the resulting four charges are directly related to the joint congressional session on Jan. 6, when the Electoral College votes were opened and debated to determine whether they should be counted. Moreover, when Jack Smith announced the indictment, he suggested that Trump was responsible for the riot that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on that day, yet none of the charges hold Trump responsible for the violence. Every charge in this dubious indictment could have been brought even if the protesters had marched “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol as Trump had requested. The charges in the indictment have nothing to do with the violence; they only relate to Trump’s insistence that he won the election, and that he would do whatever it takes to prove it.
In other words, these are not real crimes like insurrection or sedition; they are thought crimes. Smith’s “conspiracy” charges simply reflect that Trump consulted his lawyers to develop a legal strategy on how to right the wrong that he perceived. In its substance, from paragraphs 8 to 123, the indictment merely alleges over and over again that Trump refused to accept the conclusions of others that the election of Biden was legitimate, and that he had help from like-minded attorneys. How infuriating that must be to prosecutor Smith, who believes with all his heart that no one could doubt the veracity of what government officials (like him!) tell us.
But millions of us did doubt the official story of a Biden victory. In the weeks after the Nov. 3, 2020 election, I wrote about problems with the election on Nov. 6, Nov. 13, Nov. 23, Nov. 30, and Dec. 7.
If I had been able to ensure that Trump had read those columns at RealClearPolitics, I might be under indictment for conspiracy now, too. Then on Jan. 2, 2021, I wrote a column called “Our Electoral Crisis: The Call of Conscience on Jan. 6.”
In that preview of the challenge of electoral votes from disputed states, I wrote, “There is no reason to expect that the Jan. 6 session of Congress will result in certification of President Trump as the victor of the 2020 election. Despite the extensive evidence of fraud that has been amassed, this vote will be an exercise in raw political power, not an expression of blind justice. Probably the best that Trump supporters can hope for is a fair hearing before the American people regarding the reason why doubts exist as to the legitimacy of Biden’s apparent victory.”
Because of the riot at the Capitol, even that small hope was dashed, as most of the congressional debate about fraudulent activity in swing states was canceled when the joint session resumed late in the evening. It is important to note that Trump was the political victim of Jan. 6, not its beneficiary. Because of the violence, he lost his last opportunity to have a public debate on the voting irregularities that made millions of us believe the election returns were compromised.
Yet Jack Smith would have you believe that it was Trump’s plan all along to shut down the electoral count that day as part of a plan to overturn the results. It’s just a fairy tale told to Trump-hating liberals to make them feel better.
MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle summed up Smith’s theory of the case in a segment on “Morning Joe” the day after the indictment was unsealed. “It’s one thing to have beliefs. We all have beliefs,” Barnicle said. “Donald Trump had the belief that he won, and he can articulate it as long as he wants, but he does not have the right to transform that belief into illegal conduct.”
What that means is that we all have First Amendment rights to be wrong, but we do not have a right to persuade others that we are right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the first step toward totalitarianism. What we are seeing in Jack Smith’s indictment is the attempt to criminalize what I would call “other thought,” the insistence that you will make up your own mind and pursue your own truth regardless of what the government tells you. This is an attempt to codify the suppression of ideas that we saw the Deep State impose on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms in 2020. You have the right to think whatever you want, but as soon as you share thoughts that dispute the official narrative, you can be silenced, and in Trump’s case locked up in a federal penitentiary.
Well, he wouldn’t be the first person to be jailed for “other thought,” and you don’t have to turn to Russia or China for examples. How about Henry David Thoreau, who spent a brief time in jail in 1846 for protesting the Mexican-American War and wrote about his beliefs in “Civil Disobedience”?
“Any man more right than his neighbors, constitutes a majority of one already,” Thoreau told us. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”
That certainly will be true should the unthinkable happen and Jack Smith achieve his goal of imprisoning Trump. In a very real sense, the indictment is less an accusation against one man than a ham-handed attempt to enforce group-think on any Americans who resist the imperial decrees from Washington, D.C. Consider this passage from “Atlas Shrugged” in light of the hundreds of Jan. 6 convictions that turned ordinary Americans into felons:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against … We’re after power and we mean it … There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
One of the most striking parallels between the Trump and Rearden cases is the complicity of the mass media in promoting hatred for the defendants. The legacy press has been trying to destroy Trump for seven years now, starting with the Russia hoax, the Ukrainian impeachment hoax, the Trump taxes hoax, and the classified documents hoax. It didn’t matter what topic came up; the media turned it into another reason to hate Trump. Most recently, they have drummed up the “fake electors” narrative as proof that Trump intentionally tried to steal the election.
That is essentially the linchpin of Smith’s case. When Trump’s team put forward alternate electors on Dec. 14, 2020, they were following the entirely legal precedent that Democrat John F. Kennedy used successfully in the 1960 election, when Hawaii’s result was in doubt until after Dec. 14. The reason that date is so important is because the U.S. Constitution mandates that all electors must give their votes on the same day. If Trump’s lawyers were able to prove fraud after Dec. 14, but his electors had not voted on that day, then their votes would be lost forever.
Trump is an obstacle to the Deep State that seeks power over people, just as Hank Rearden was an obstacle to the economic tyranny of “Atlas Shrugged.” Rearden was not a person of quite the stature of Trump, but more of an Elon Musk – a self-made man of unthinkable wealth who didn’t follow anyone’s rules but his own. But that last quality is shared by all three men, and perhaps that more than anything is what has made them all targets.
Here’s how Rand described the media’s assault against Rearden as his trial began, and how their campaign to marginalize him had failed because the regular people oddly identified with the millionaire industrialist just as Trump gains popular strength with each new indictment thrown his way:
“The crowd knew from the newspapers that he represented the evil of ruthless wealth; and … so they came to see him; evil, at least, did not have the stale hopelessness of a bromide which none believed and none dared to challenge. They looked at him without admiration – admiration was a feeling they had lost the capacity to experience, long ago; they looked with curiosity and with a dim sense of defiance against those who had told them that it was their duty to hate him.”
That’s how the trial started, but by the time Rearden spoke in his own defense – or rather spoke to demolish the prosecution’s false claims – the crowd was in full support of Rearden in his battle against the nameless, faceless bureaucrats who had regulated the country into despair. When he turned to the crowd in the courtroom:
He saw faces that laughed in violent excitement, and faces that pleaded for help; he saw their silent despair breaking out into the open; he saw the same anger and indignation as his own, finding release in the wild defiance of their cheering; he saw the looks of admiration and the looks of hope.
As the crowd surged around him, he smiled in answer to their smiles, to the frantic tragic eagerness of their faces; there was a touch of sadness in his smile. “God bless you, Mr. Rearden!” said an old woman with a ragged shawl over her head. “Can’t you save us, Mr. Rearden? They’re eating us alive, and it’s no use fooling anybody about how it’s the rich that they’re after…”
It is just that same magical connection which happens between Trump and his supporters at a MAGA rally, and that is why Jack Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and President Joe Biden want to put Trump behind bars. He gives people hope, and hope is dangerous when you have a plan to subjugate them. To succeed, tyranny needs willing victims, and Trump – like any Ayn Rand hero or heroine – fights back. That’s the true reason his enemies hate him.
“We fight like hell,” Trump said on Jan. 6, not in regard to violence but in regard to protecting our country from the thugs who would transform it into a dictatorship. “And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
That’s the fighting spirit which makes me know my dream of Trump rejecting the court’s authority, like Hank Rearden did, will never come to fruition. While it would have a hint of poetic justice, that’s not what Trump is after. He wants real justice, political justice, freedom for all, and that means he has to stand up, stand tall, stand firm. When he says that the government is coming through him to get to you, he’s not joking. And millions of us are on his side, with one desperate question on our lips: “Can you save us, Mr. Trump?”
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire. Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His newest book, “What Matters Most: God, Country, Family and Friends,” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter or Gettr @HeartlandDiary.
Meanwhile, Joe, Hunter, and other members of the Biden crime family, continue to launder and rake in millions. Billions more going to Ukraine. Maui? Old Joe has been a little silent on this one.
There are some major differences between Trump and Reardon.
Reardon’s ego didn’t drive him to say and do some of the things Trump’s ego did. Reardon didn’t serve up his opposition with so many self inflicted wounds.
That aside, the overall point sorta works. The system is trying to crush someone who stood up to it. Reardon was “guilty” of wanting to own and control his own accomplishments. Trump is “guilty” of beating Hilary.
It was her turn. Trump had the gall to beat her. Worse, be a mostly good POTUS. This can not, will not, ever be forgiven.
The progressive fatwa on Trump will never end. He will spend the rest of his life being slandered, lawfared, harassed. I have no doubt they would attempt to end him if they could.
Worse, the progressives will never stop their overall jihad on the US system. The political persecution of Trump proves this. They will have him even if it means destroying the American system they hate.
Jihadi zealots can’t be reasoned with. Ever.
One wonders how he won in 2016 (or did he, I mean aren’t all of our elections rigged?) against the all powerful (and still not defined) “deep state”.
It happened because even the deep state is not omnipotent, and in their arrogance they underestimated the broad public support for Trump, as flawed a candidate as he was (and is).
Actually they underestimated the history Hillary Clinton already had with the American people, who know her as an incompetent, arrogant and entitled person and wanted nothing to do with her.
If you think the 2016 election was rigged in any way, raise the alarm. Point to the things that you see as questionable, and demand an investigation.
Sorry Masked, you got this one wrong. Trump never beat Hillary. They were both applying for a job. The Trump voters beat the Hillary voters. You’re making the same mistake Trump makes… thinking its about him. As another example, Trump’s current struggles are not about him. Rather they are about us patriots defending our republic against tyrannical Marxists. If it was another man in Trump’s position we should do just the same. As the Marxists are obviously intent on cheating, we may never see another acceptable national election.
Actually I’m not. But if you wish to split the most inconsequential of hairs, go for it.
Correct MA. The author’s use of Rand “overall point sorta works.” This article does our next President NO favors though – Trump cannot be simply classified by Rand’s heroes of unaccountable selfish ambition and her insistence that self is the only philosophical point worthy of promoting. To wit: Ayn Rand is an atheist trying to work out a worldview without God – like the devil told Eve in the Garden, “…you will be like God…”, your own self-god. We simply cannot put President Trump in that box – no one before him has ever donated his salary to help pay the national debt. Donald Trump is our hero and next President BECAUSE he cares more for the nation than himself. It is only the msm, and the libtards that parrot the msm talking points that paint him an egotistical fool.
The saddest part in all this is the GOP flatly didn’t listen to what the voters told them.
We were/are so sick of being treated like retarded children by people so far removed from reality. That’s why we picked Trump. He seemed to actually listen to us.
The GOP is determined to treat Trump as an aberration. That will undo them. Hopefully it won’t undo the nation.
I was Cruz in the first election. Trump in the second (he earned a second term). I was hoping DeSantis would show better this time.
But if it’s a choice between Trump and anyone the progressives serve up, it’s Trump time.
Continuing my Rand point… President Trump did not run for or administer the office of the Presidency for personal gain of either wealth or even power. He loves our country selfLESSly – who else would have put up with such withering constant personal attack and calumny – contrary to the bumbling demented pretender and his handlers who currently (and I believe illegally) occupy his office. Trump is not Jesus Christ, neither am I – find a better man to be our President in 2024? I don’t think we will.
Outstanding article. Superbly articulated. Its exactly what is going on–and I am very concerned for our Republic.
JUSTICE?????
THAT IS A JOKE!!!
TRUMP 2024🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I have not been a fan of Trump since I first knew of him in the 1980s. I did not vote for him (or anyone) in 2016. He was an OK president (light years better then the current pant load). No new wars. Economy was good. His nepotism, prior adultery, many incredibly poor hires and low loyalty to his staff were among his faults.
There is no doubt he is being persecuted and has been for at least seven years. His enemies are of ugly soul- mendacious, grasping for power, riches and control. They are evil. His enemies are also my enemies, as they do not confine themselves to persecuting him. This latest indictment (using RICO of all statutes) begins with election interference and potentially ends with the last nail being struck into the coffin of our Republic. I hope he wins in 2024. I wonder how many others who were hostile or indifferent to him in the past are no longer? I do not think 50-55% of the voters would never vote for him as is currently touted. I think it is much lower. He could get 90+ million votes. When Jackson was denied the presidency in 1824 (an election somewhat similar in outcome to 2020), he was very strong in 1828. Will history rhyme as is does?
Micah. Contrary to your assertion, you voted in 2016. By not voting you voted for Hillary. Thank God your were outvoted.
Not voting is not voting. Kinda like words have meaning.
Also, you can take the “Rock the Vote” slogans and the self righteousness and stick it were the sun don’t shine. Pro tip. When someone comes onside best not to try and kick them in the ___. That may be helpful for his candidacy if you come across other potential supporters.
It’s amazing to me that y’all cannot believe any allegation against Trump has any merit whatsoever, that he’s as innocent as a person can be. Yet, Trump supporters believe ANY allegation against Biden et al is irrefutable truth.
Could it be…Trump AND Biden are both slime balls, guilty of many crimes and equally unfit to serve?
Or is Trump really, truly, an innocent victim of a corrupt system?
Reverse the names and then tell me, if there is equal justice under the law. Did Biden get indicted for the documents he kept next to his Camero for decades? To say nothing of the emerging bribery scandal. Did Hillary get hauled into court for destroying thousands of documents and running an illegal server, while she screeched to all and sundry about Russian collusion and a “stolen” 2016 election???
If you can answer that with an affirmative “yes” we can talk about Trump’s culpability. Until then this remains the persecution of a political rival(and his supporters) by all means necessary by the people in power and the law be damned! It is the end of the republic as we know it, as equal justice under the law is now a figment of your imagination.
Spot on.
Sigh….this again.
I’ll make an allowance this time. Pay attention, schools in session.
Many here are well aware of Trump’s many flaws. Only the idiotic few think Trump walks on water, and few of them are taken seriously. However, he is the better option and is reluctantly supported.
Your fatal flaws are as follows:
-you seem unable to grasp many of us support his policies, not necessarily the man.
-that you can look at Trump and Biden and draw any kind of equivocation. One is accused of being a lout, the other of engaging in organized crime.
-you don’t seem to understand we’re smart enough to be able to spot a political witch hunt was it occurs. Especially when indictments drop literally within two days of Biden getting in more trouble.
-you clearly are unable to discern differences between conservatives. Can’t help but wonder if you use that same myopic lens with minorities.
Bell rings. Schools out for the day.
Trump is only guilty of supporting America. The fact that he’s being pursecuted by the liberals is hard proof of this. The more charges they pile on, the more innocent they prove him to be. The question is, why are liberals going along with this as if he’s actually guilty? The answer is TDS. They just don’t like him, and are willing to believe anything that casts him in a bad light. Proof that this is a partisan effort to pursecute the best president we’ve had.
It is not about belief. it is about the unequal way the justice system is being applied.
Many democrats are equally (or more) guilty of mishandling classified information, but no armed raids, no indictments, none of this. Many folks on the left are just as guilty (or more guilty) of abusing campaign funds, but no indictments? A phone call was the basis for Trump’s impeachment in 2020, but when (then) vice president Biden brags on a national stage about strongarming another country’s leadership, it is “yawn…”
This makes me want to vote for trump even more. If he is not our next president look out.
What they do to Trump they can do to us if we don’t obey their every command. These are all military courts – Territorial (Admiralty), MUNICIPAL (Maritime). They all operate out of the foreign enclave Washington DC. The Territorial government “”the” United States of America” established in 1789, a Democracy, and is British Law of the Sea. The Municipal Government “the” United States 1790, is Papist, a Plenary Oligarchy. It’s all foreign.
Democrats need to be very careful writing their new rules. For if the old rules no longer apply, ANYTHING else will be possible. Apparently they believe that they can do whatever they want to do without recourse, forgetting that the political world is a non-linear system. An action in the political world does not trigger an opposite and equal reaction. Rather, it will trigger a completely non predictable reaction, out of plane, far larger or smaller, with timing nobody expects. I keep warning the political left that they are not going to enjoy living under their new rules. I fear that their current anti-Trump jihad will trigger a reaction that will make the Cali Vigilance Committees a century and a half ago look like Romper Room. You girls need to be careful. Cheers –
President Donald J. Trump does not appear to be an establishment candidate for either party does he.
And precisely that is his REAL crime, in the eyes of the predatory globalist ruling class.
Trump crashed their little party, the Potemkin facade of democracy, and they will punish him to the ends of the earth for that — because doing so will have a chilling effect on anyone else who would dare meaningfully challenge them.
Maybe the judges and lawyers will decide who the next president will be, if old age doesn’t prevail. Predicting that Americans will prevail in the end but have little to base that on besides history. People will get out and vote for once. Tyranny is loosing its grip.
Perhaps with 91 charges – including dozens of felonies – one begins to think maybe this guy shouldn’t be the commander in chief. Can you imagine him being president of your local bank?
Yes I can. He’d be a great bank president. Open to a fault and speaks his mind.
It doesn’t matter how many charges are leveled against him. Or that many are felonies. The fact that every single D.A. that has filed these charges are avowed Trump haters, means their words hold as much truth about the man as a paper bag holds water.
Easily, but he is a far better President. BTW, DJT would have made sure those recent bank failings didn’t occur – he’s a much better businessman.
Whoa there Nelly, Just wait till next month. There will be at least 191 charges on him.
When it hits the 200 mark I say guilty of all of the above just because he has to be guilty of something…..
We just havent quite figured out what will stick.
I guess it all depends on the location of the trial and if they can recruit enough of Bidens flock for the jury.
If you get lucky you may get a jury duty notice and get to scorch an innocent man using the kangaroo legal system.
If you can prove you are on the left side you could do drugs nail prostitutes illegally purchase guns and toss em in the dumpster next to the school to keep from shooting yourself in the head and skate on down to the paint store and buy some more paint for your half million dollar paintings.
Sounds like a totally fair deal to me. How bout you Sebastion? Guilty or not?
If it’s between him and someone who is credibly accused of bribery, racketeering, and inappropriate relationships with children?
Hell yes.
A great commentary on the onslaught of tyranny on the common man in America by destroying the rights embodied in the constitution.
Whenever anyone refers their remarks to someone’s made up story, I feel it’s a waste of time, to try and make something out of it unless I have personally read it, studied it, studied the context of the time it was written, and studied the writer’s ability to get whatever points that the writer was attempting to make. This particular fiction from this author and playwright is brought up frequently and I haven’t taken the time to even read the Cliff Notes version. In high school I took science fiction as one of the English language electives, and one can read only so much formulaic prose before the genre seems boring. I think it’s interesting to consider the motivations of this Russian American ‘butch’ writing as daughter of immigrants in her time in US, Russian, and world history. To me, a woman who seems ‘butch’ seems to take personal pride in acting against a personally perceived societal expectation by others, especially to be noticed and compared to the ‘influencers’ or for show, in behaviors meant not necessarily which are not practiced for expediency but easily meant to be categorized as characteristic of a certain group of people.
When bringing up discussions of this woman’s popular fiction for the general readers, I think it’s a lot easier for the reader to simply discuss whatever is the point without going into trying to figure out what was in the story writer’s mind.
You really need your meds checked.
Translation: I have no valid argument.
Clearly Mrs. N has not read “Atlas shrugged”. That’s her prerogative, yet she is taking the Kamala Harris approach of saying nothing in 500 words or more. While beating up on Alice O’Connor she conveniently ignores the real issue of the article. Persecution of DJT by powers that be and the fundamental change of the legal landscape this country.
Trump lost, get over it
But they lost their cash cow. They are going to whine. Meanwhile, the Birthright owner of said account? Should I say that needs to be rightfully returned Frank? This circus is a sideshow in comparison if that one walks into ICC and asks WTF is going on….
Words from Ben Shapiro:
“All of this is quite terrible for the country. No matter what you think of Trump’s various legal imbroglios—from mishandling classified documents to paying off porn stars to calling up the Georgia secretary of state in an attempt to “find” votes—the glass has now been broken over and over and over again: Political opponents can be targeted by legal enemies. It will not be unbroken.
If you think that only Democratic district attorneys will play this game, you have another thing coming. Prepare for a future in which running for office carries the legal risk of going to jail—on all sides. Which means that only the worst and the most shameless will run for office.”
.
.
To all the leftists that are celebrating this miscarriage of justice, realize that sooner or later (barring a coup that shreds the Constitution), the table will change. And, I am sure you will not like the results.
Comments are closed.