Short post on a question I've been ruminating on about Trump's prosecution. One of the common arguments I've come across from the MAGA Right is that prosecuting Trump is improper because it's just political retaliation falsely disguised as a neutral and dispassionate application of the law.
I think the reason why Trump is being prosecuted is the man made it too damn easy and obvious. The dude basically ADMITTED that he knew he broke the law, knew it was wrong, and then TOLD HIS LAWYERS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T COOPERATE! It's baffling to me that anyone could defend him for this conduct. He literally undermined any and every possible defense he could muster.
Should HRC have been prosecuted? Maybe, possibly, and if the argument you want to make is "but her emails!" I would concede: fine. Prosecute HRC. Toss her in jail, I don't care. That doesn't absolve Trump; nor does it make it right to NOT prosecute Trump.
"Trump is a bad client" has much truth to it, but it's interesting because as a businessman he is no stranger to the courts.
I've heard he has a strategy of being in breech of contract or something, but then drags on the court proceedings long enough to bankrupt the counterparty. Or at least he can credibly threaten this to get what he wants.
So perhaps he has a mentality that he's OK being obviously in the legal wrong, because it will help him in the bigger picture. This even worked for him in the civil suite over that rape allegation -- where he defended himself only in the court of public opinion.
But now he's bringing this mentality to a criminal case brought by enemies who no only have deep pockets, but can reach into the pockets of every American.
If prosecution were not so obviously blatantly selective, if HRC were cooling off in Leavenworth for her bathroom server, I wouldn't have a problem with prosecuting Trump for the same thing.
I could agree that the prosecution is selective if it was established that Trump and HRC's circumstances were more directly comparable. As it stands, the glaring and most persuasive distinction for me boils down to his comically inept obstruction maneuvering , including lying to his own lawyers.
It's always possible to find some difference ("see, this case was filed on a Tuesday and today is a Monday") and claim that this is somehow salient.
None of that is a defense of Trump, simply pointing out that this is an obvious case of selective prosecution. And I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
> the glaring and most persuasive distinction for me boils down to his comically inept obstruction maneuvering
Maneuvering which, however inept, was only necessary because of the politically motivated investigation. Which has now metastasized into a politically motivated prosectuion.
Trump appears to have been trying to engage in withholding documents that perhaps he should have turned over, but he did not destroy evidence. HRC did. That she was not prosecuted for that tells me that Trump is being prosecuted for political reasons.
Hi Yassine, the implications of the brazen globohomo show-trials against Trump are painful and scary to think about, and the sense I've gotten from the mainstream right is that they would prefer to focus on distractions instead. I did a deep dive into the implications, though, which you may appreciate here:
We can blame Trump for not locking crooked Hillary up like he promised.
Hillary provides useful perspective, because his threats to lock her up were considered a bit quixotic - indeed any attempt was probably doomed to fail. When he failed to even try do so we didn't hear much "nobody is above the law" discourse. But now suddenly we are finding that the standard should be something else.
> ... all action against him should be assumed to be ill-disguised political retaliation as a rule. Assuming that's true, then what? Should the rule be that other politicians can be prosecuted but that Trump should have a carve-out in consideration of the unusually aggressive persecution he had to endure?
I personally don't care whether he gets a carve-out, I don't like the man and I would enjoy seeing him humiliated. Especially if that creates space for his Republican rivals. However regardless of that, we can still observe that the lawfare is politically motivated and look with disgust at the ostensibly neutral institutions (civil service, media) who are enable the double-standard.
HRC is Team D, that is. The political manifestation of the hegemonic class, that is, the PMC.
Trump is the class enemy, and therefore any pretext can be used on him.
Think back to high school, when the uncool kids were mercilessly tormented for doing exactly the same thing that the Cool Kids were idolized for doing.
My personal test is sadly non-transferrable: I need to believe that a Democratic president would be subject to the same charges, given the same circumstances (though god knows Trump is a walking collection of unique, odious circumstances).
As it is, she is basically gloating that she will never so much as be questioned under oath (lest she be forced to perjure herself) for something comparable to what Trump is threatened with literally hundreds of years in prison for.
I think the reason why Trump is being prosecuted is the man made it too damn easy and obvious. The dude basically ADMITTED that he knew he broke the law, knew it was wrong, and then TOLD HIS LAWYERS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T COOPERATE! It's baffling to me that anyone could defend him for this conduct. He literally undermined any and every possible defense he could muster.
Should HRC have been prosecuted? Maybe, possibly, and if the argument you want to make is "but her emails!" I would concede: fine. Prosecute HRC. Toss her in jail, I don't care. That doesn't absolve Trump; nor does it make it right to NOT prosecute Trump.
I completely agree with all of this. Trump is such a comically inept criminal defendant, it's like cartoon villain levels here.
"Trump is a bad client" has much truth to it, but it's interesting because as a businessman he is no stranger to the courts.
I've heard he has a strategy of being in breech of contract or something, but then drags on the court proceedings long enough to bankrupt the counterparty. Or at least he can credibly threaten this to get what he wants.
So perhaps he has a mentality that he's OK being obviously in the legal wrong, because it will help him in the bigger picture. This even worked for him in the civil suite over that rape allegation -- where he defended himself only in the court of public opinion.
But now he's bringing this mentality to a criminal case brought by enemies who no only have deep pockets, but can reach into the pockets of every American.
If prosecution were not so obviously blatantly selective, if HRC were cooling off in Leavenworth for her bathroom server, I wouldn't have a problem with prosecuting Trump for the same thing.
I could agree that the prosecution is selective if it was established that Trump and HRC's circumstances were more directly comparable. As it stands, the glaring and most persuasive distinction for me boils down to his comically inept obstruction maneuvering , including lying to his own lawyers.
It's always possible to find some difference ("see, this case was filed on a Tuesday and today is a Monday") and claim that this is somehow salient.
None of that is a defense of Trump, simply pointing out that this is an obvious case of selective prosecution. And I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
> the glaring and most persuasive distinction for me boils down to his comically inept obstruction maneuvering
Maneuvering which, however inept, was only necessary because of the politically motivated investigation. Which has now metastasized into a politically motivated prosectuion.
Trump appears to have been trying to engage in withholding documents that perhaps he should have turned over, but he did not destroy evidence. HRC did. That she was not prosecuted for that tells me that Trump is being prosecuted for political reasons.
Cue up a chorus of Team D leghumpers insisting that withholding documents is so much worse.
Anyway, HRC also had her infamous bathroom email server.
Hi Yassine, the implications of the brazen globohomo show-trials against Trump are painful and scary to think about, and the sense I've gotten from the mainstream right is that they would prefer to focus on distractions instead. I did a deep dive into the implications, though, which you may appreciate here:
https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/trump-on-trial-an-examination-of
We can blame Trump for not locking crooked Hillary up like he promised.
Hillary provides useful perspective, because his threats to lock her up were considered a bit quixotic - indeed any attempt was probably doomed to fail. When he failed to even try do so we didn't hear much "nobody is above the law" discourse. But now suddenly we are finding that the standard should be something else.
> ... all action against him should be assumed to be ill-disguised political retaliation as a rule. Assuming that's true, then what? Should the rule be that other politicians can be prosecuted but that Trump should have a carve-out in consideration of the unusually aggressive persecution he had to endure?
I personally don't care whether he gets a carve-out, I don't like the man and I would enjoy seeing him humiliated. Especially if that creates space for his Republican rivals. However regardless of that, we can still observe that the lawfare is politically motivated and look with disgust at the ostensibly neutral institutions (civil service, media) who are enable the double-standard.
HRC is Team D, that is. The political manifestation of the hegemonic class, that is, the PMC.
Trump is the class enemy, and therefore any pretext can be used on him.
Think back to high school, when the uncool kids were mercilessly tormented for doing exactly the same thing that the Cool Kids were idolized for doing.
My personal test is sadly non-transferrable: I need to believe that a Democratic president would be subject to the same charges, given the same circumstances (though god knows Trump is a walking collection of unique, odious circumstances).
We can look at the case of HRC and her emails.
As it is, she is basically gloating that she will never so much as be questioned under oath (lest she be forced to perjure herself) for something comparable to what Trump is threatened with literally hundreds of years in prison for.