Democrats' Get-Trump Crusade Is Going To End In Disappointment
By: Tom Crist (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By: Tom Crist August 18, 2023
Depression will set in when Trump, even if convicted of something, lives free for the rest of his life while his appeals against the bogus convictions succeed one at a time.
The Democrat Party has indicted former President Donald Trump again, this time on the craziest charges yet, and the unrestrainedly giddy leftists should prepare for another gut-wrenching let down. Even the perp walk they desire so badly will fail to satisfy them.
There is no realistic way that Trump disagreeing with election results can be considered racketeering, especially when countless Democrats did the same thing after every presidential election won by a Republican in the past two decades. Democrat Stacey Abrams can claim to be the rightful governor of Georgia for years with no repercussions. But Trump has been indicted in the same state for asking the state's officials to comb the election centers for uncounted votes. The hypocrisy is demented.
Trump faces nearly 100 criminal counts in several courts in multiple states. This is a coordinated barrage with suspect timing. Whenever the corruption investigation inches closer to President Joe Biden, the Democrats indict Trump the next day to send a signal: Leave our guy alone, or we will raise the stakes on your guy. Or at least it appears that way to many people.
Team Trump calls this "lawfare," a form of transparent and ill-intentioned election interference. It is possible Trump's team will wade through the scattergun allegations, make successful preemptive legal strikes, and convince courts to declare many of these charges defective. But he will need an unprecedented running of the defensive table to avoid getting nailed for something, especially considering the venues of these cases: all blue strongholds.
If he is convinced of a crime, especially one the Democrat leaders also regularly commit, and he goes to prison, the left will be orgasmic. Their lives will be complete, but will their quality of life really improve?
Will getting Trump an inmate number make Hillary Clinton president? Will it take one criminal off the street in New York City, Chicago, or San Francisco? Will it convince one fleeing employer to move back to those cities? Will it improve our position in the world? Will it make groceries affordable for Americans, secure our border, or free our citizens from fentanyl? The answers are all "no." The goal is not to improve anything. It is to get Trump. That sets the Democrats up for disappointment.
Depression will set in when Trump, even if convicted of something, lives free for the rest of his long life while his appeals against the bogus convictions succeed one at a time. Democrats will say the judicial system is rigged against them. They will blame Justice Clarence Thomas. Do they really think a former president will go to prison for minor process crimes? The First Amendment wrecks most of these charges without breaking a sweat.
No matter how many politicians and networks say otherwise, Trump has not been charged with sedition or insurrection. Democrat operatives have indicted him for having a big mouth and refusing to admit defeat. His state of mind and prosecutors' disparate treatment of others who acted similarly will be front and center at his trials and in the court of public opinion.
Trump will ask why Clinton can mishandle secret documents and willfully destroy evidence, but Trump faces criminal prosecution for his classified documents. Why can Biden scatter classified documents all over his houses and Chinatown, but Trump cannot have materials at his home? Why can Democrat senators and congressmen make calls to arms that resulted in, or at least supported, deadly riots all over our country and hold up the First Amendment as a complete defense, but Trump cannot?
Why can Clinton author a book and go on a promotional tour claiming Trump stole her presidency, but Trump cannot call an election rigged? Clinton, one of the least popular presidential candidates ever, will be on trial by analogy.
The same people pushing Trump's prosecution will go to shocking lengths to protect Biden and his family. They tell us Biden was in the dark about alleged family bribes until that is repeatedly exposed as a lie. Then, once caught, they admit he attended meetings with his son and foreign oligarchs that lined up with receipts of those bribes, but say he was only discussing the weather. Now, Biden's counsel says no paper trail will directly link the bribes to Biden. Also, Biden is a great dad and should just be left alone.
When the Biden family crumbles and the Democrats say, "OK, OK. Just let Joe retire in peace. He's a good man. He has experienced loss. He does not understand all of this and was just taking bribes to help his son get on his feet," the answer must be, "No, it's too late for any of that. You should not have started this." When hypocrisy of this degree runs headlong into reality, those involved must pay the piper.
Imagine if more than half of the American public sees Biden circling the drains of job performance and mental fitness and decides to elect Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, or another Republican who would retaliate against the left's lawfare. Think of the unemployment lines in Washington, D.C. Bureaucrats will stand up, put their desk materials in a box, and receive their indictment from a smiling special counsel on their way out the door to the metro.
Whether Trump wins or loses in 2024, the Democrat Party will not see him executed, lashed, or imprisoned for life. They'll be let down.
Thomas Crist is a husband, father, lawyer, and political conservative who loves his country and despises all myopic hypocrisy regardless of its source.
Although The Federalist is a hopeless far right rag, I thought this moronic article was interesting enough to seed.
The "arguments" made on behalf of Trump are kind of a greatest hits list of Trump defenses over the past couple years.
"The Democrats do it too"
"All Trump wanted was a fair election'
"Trump has better policies for the country"
"Crime in Chicago and New York wont be lowered by putting Donald Trump in jail"
"Hillary Clinton mishandled classified documents too"
It is an endless parade of whining, and false comparisons. And its not going to work this time.
He's also a dishonest idiot.
Tom Crist is right on, and he nailed the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the left. Pretty much everything in the article is the truth and the voters know it, regardless of the whining and crying by the progressive extremists and the compliant media whores.
Projection.
Be honest, do you actually believe that ⇡ ?
Let's go after the source, eh John? Can't discuss the cases 'cause you realize you don't understand what's coming down the pike.
Civil vs Criminal - what are these "indictments" for?
For a decision in either, the decision by the court will be based on two factors - "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence".
The preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt standards are both used in different types of legal cases and serve different purposes.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is used in civil cases, where one party is seeking damages or other forms of relief from another party. This standard requires the party with the burden of proof to show that it is more likely than not that their version of events is true, i.e. 51%.
On the other hand, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is used in criminal cases. It requires the prosecution to prove its case to such a degree that no reasonable doubt can be left in the minds of the jury or judge. This standard ensures that the defendant is not convicted of a crime unless the evidence presented is strong and convincing.
In terms of difficulty, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is generally considered harder to prove than the preponderance of the evidence standard. This is because the prosecution in a criminal case must prove their case to a higher degree of certainty than in a civil case.
Neither is going to be shown because these are emotional indictments, not civil nor criminal.
One hundred percent agree with your assessment. Much better explanation than others that try and demean while lecturing.
As much as I agree, I'm afraid that the jurisdictions of three of these indictments are highly infested with "hate Trump" turds that will find him guilty only because of the name Trump.
Thankfully, the appeals system seems to be a little more sane and most, if not all, of the charges will be overturned, ESPECIALLY if they make it to the SCOTUS.
One of the great mysteries of Newstalkers is what turned you into a Trump supporter. And please, dont bother saying you are not.
As far as the legal outcomes , why dont you explain why you think the orange pos is innocent?
Yeah, you musta missed that part in Civics 101 - that little thingy that sez a person in a court case is "innocent until proven guilty" - and that ol' concept, from 1215 and the Magna Carta, is often cited as one of the first documents in human history to spell out the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The Magna Carta had a profound impact on the development of both English and American law.
The presumption of innocence is among the most sacred principles in the American court system. The concept of being innocent until proven guilty means that anybody accused of a crime is assumed innocent until the allegations leveled against them are proven. It squarely places the burden of proof on the government to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens that no one shall be “deprived of life, property or liberty without following the due process of law.” The 14th Amendment applies this principle to states in the U.S.
I know you don't like Trump and I also know that you will wear the most sturdy and darkest blinders you can find to block out anyone saying anything in opposition to your "opinion" regarding Trump.
But, no John, for the 50th time, I am not a Trump supporter but I am a defender of the laws of the land and also am a person who holds strong beliefs in our judicial system (remember, I am an attorney in Federal Indian Law) and I don't care how shady or how much of a reject from human society a person is, EVERYONE DESERVES AND IS GUARANTEED THEIR DAY IN COURT BEFORE THEY CAN BE FOUND GUILTY OF ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.
Read the Constitution John - get your emotions outta the way until you can make "informed" decisions regarding how the law works.
That being said, Trump is innocent of all charges until, either through a preponderance of evidence or through being shown beyond a reasonable doubt, the COURTS find him guilty - not the Dem/Lib justice system.
Trump is presumed not guilty until he is found not guilty. That is the legal dimension.
Outside of that, we are all free to ascertain wrongdoing by Trump or anyone else.
Based on the evidence that we all have, do you hold that it was wrong for Trump to declare, as sitting PotUS, that the US electoral system is rigged, that Biden as PotUS would be illegitimate and that tens of millions of votes were disenfranchised?
Was a wrong for Trump to suborn Pence to unconstitutionally act to table certified votes?
Was it wrong for Trump to stall, lie, hide, suborn others to do likewise so that he could retain classified documents at Mar-a-Lago?
I could go on, but the point is that with common knowledge evidence it is quite valid for individuals to come to a conclusion about Trump's wrongdoing. Especially if they can produce a cogent supporting argument.
And if you or anyone else thinks that Trump did not engage in wrongdoing, you are also free to make your argument. I have yet to read a sound argument to that effect. I have, however, read equivocating nonsense such as "Trump was indicted for questioning an election".
Lemme clarify something for you - "We" don't have any evidence - the court does. You're talking 'bout "popular knowledge", dredged up by the media to try to "prove", before the trials, that Trump is guilty.
Opinions from anyone are strictly that - their opinions based on many factors. But none of those factors contain "evidence" - only opinion. The evidence is in the courts.
You are denying reality. We have plenty of evidence. For example, on the question:
Was it wrong for Trump to, as sitting PotUS, lie that the US electoral system is rigged, that Biden would not be a legitimate PotUS and that tens of millions of voters were disenfranchised?
We all can watch for ourselves as Trump stated the above on election night. Not only is that evidence of wrongdoing, it is proof. Unless, of course, you have the opinion that Trump was NOT wrong to make those claims.
Trump is going to trial in a few jurisdictions, 1st. He will receive what the jury decides about his guilt or innocence if anything he is getting special treatment so much that if I ran by mouth like he is doing on truth social and other media after the judge's instructions I'd be in fricking jail tomorrow. If any of us were accused of the crimes he is accused of we'd have to produce bail in very large amounts or sit in jail until the trial.
As far as everyone being equal under the law is more BS, if you have the money/power/status your chances of being convicted of a crime is much less than the rest of us. You can quote the Constitution and all of its amendments for the next thousand years and it will generally fall back on who has the money.
Trump is out there lying every day about the election and numerous other things yet, he is being protected and trial (s) will either show him for what he is or not. It is simple but to bet on the horse that is a born liar just might be a bad bet.
I can't wait for all this shit to be over with and Trump fades into Mar a Largo never to be seen or heard from again.
And in a country with the 1st amendment, everyone is entitled to speak their mind, whether others like it or not and that is what is happening here and with Trump.
Sworn testimony to a congressional committee is EVIDENCE , and they have a ton of it.
Do you have any other bright ideas?
Except, there is a damning lot of evidence of crimes by Trumo in all those ninety criminal indictments passed by four grand juries that saw the evidence of those crimes in courts!
Dig had it right the other day when he said all this denial on behalf of Trump is ridiculous. It is a shame that the country is being put through this garbage by a political cult.
It is a shame that the country is being put through this garbage by two political cults. Fixed it for you....
Your desperate whataboutism does not impress.
Neither does your flailing partisanery.
The truth looks like partisanship to Trumpsters.
Yes!
Right off the bat ...
... we see the typical extreme watering-down of Trump's actions. The author claims that all Trump did was disagree with the results of the election.
The author, immediately, has no credibility.
What is disturbing is that authors like this apparently think that readers will believe his bullshit. Certainly those who want Trump to be innocent will use articles like this as part of their confirmation bias. And of course there are hopelessly naïve voters who will simply believe this crap. But critical thinking individuals will dismiss it as nonsense. So what is the point? To win over those who already are drowning in the Kool-Aid?
Answer: the point is to stoke the base under the assumption that nominating Trump and energizing the R base will result in good things for the GOP. If that is the case, such 'thinking' is irrational, irresponsible, unpatriotic partisanship.
You have a good question. What is the point of this sort of defense of Trump? It certainly isnt to align with realty.
Exactly, it is defiance of reality (truth). They only way for the GOP to proceed with Trump is to go full steam ahead with lies.
It certainly isnt to align with realty.
I can’t think of a single thing about Trump that is anchored in reality. He just a brand. An empty suit. Where his name shows up there’s nothing but the name, whether it’s a building, or a product, or a promise, or a candidacy. His followers can’t see that he is just an empty vessel.
Selling paper and getting hits. Everything in MAGAland is grifting.
I quit reading when I read this.
Any idiot knows that political parties don't indict anybody and this is a lie. Therefore anything written after this is presumed to be lies also so I just don't read it.
There was a clue before that. Anyone who refers to the Democratic party as the 'Democrat' party is using the Rush Limbaugh invented pejorative and is clearly not going to be objective. (Similarly with those who refer to the Republican party as Rethuglicans, etc.)
Yeah, the name calling gets pretty tiresome.
I read it for the comedic effect and the unbelievable distortion and outright denial of reality.
Probably what was being inferred is that there is nothing "democratic" about the party, so he used a term that was close.
You're missing the point bugsy. No political party has the power to indict anybody. Nearly every Republican in the country is now saying that it's Democrats who have indicted Trump. THAT IS A LIE. Do you know how the grand jury process works?
Anybody who has looked at these indictments objectively sees them as political, nothing more.
Was it a coincidence that every one of the prosecutors want trials to start right around the times of primaries? Most people think not. The idea is to overwhelm Trump with trials so heavily that he will need to back out of the race.
I will see much disappointment when he does not.
In addition, there is a very good chance that most, if not all, of these charges, with the exception of Florida, he will be found guilty simply because of the jurisdiction of where they are being tried.
The problem the left has is each and every guilty verdict will be appealed and will take years to resolve.
In the meantime, Trump could finish up his entire second term.
If he drops out of the race, I see these felony indictments turn into plea deals where he will plead guilty to misdemeanors and get, at the most, probation, never seeing a day in prison.
The screaming at the sky by the left will be immense.
That is utter nonsense. You clearly have not carefully read the indictments, compared them to what is publicly known, and compared them to extant US law. To be purely political these indictments would have to be without merit. They clearly are not and virtually every legal analysis that I have seen confirms that.
Ridiculous conspiracy theory.
You think a unanimous jury verdict is easy to achieve due simply to venue? Especially if, as you imply, the indictments are without merit?
Your 'logic' is irrational.
Thank you for your opinion.
"Ridiculous conspiracy theory."
Thank you for your opinion.
"Your 'logic' is irrational."
Thank you for your opinion.
See a pattern here?
Have a nice day.
In short, you have no rebuttal.
Thank you for your opinion.
"The screaming at the sky by the left will be immense."
It usually is.
"Depression will set in when Trump, even if convicted of something, lives free for the rest of his life while his appeals against the bogus convictions succeed one at a time."
I don't know if Trump is guilty of any crimes or not, nor do I care. But the quote directly above is what's going to happen in the real world.
I just doubt that there will be any convictions, let alone incarcerations, for these alleged crimes.
The supporters/enablers of the former 'president' and defenders of the indefensible don't appear to live in the real world.
He is currently not known to be guilty of any of the charges contained in the indictments. Guilt is determined by a trial which produces a verdict of 'guilty'.
So nobody can state Trump is guilty of these charges but we certainly can form rational opinions as to his wrongdoing.
You claim that you will vote for Trump if he is the GOP nominee yet you do not care if he is guilty of the crimes with which he has been charged???
[Deleted]
Again, if someone breaks into your house and steals your 70" tv, but does not get convicted, does that mean it never happened?
Legal guilt and commonsense guilt are not necessarily the same thing. The evidence determines guilt or innocence.
In many left wing jurisdictions, yes.
Well, if I lived in a city such as Chicago, or any deep blue city/state, then yes, it will be looked at as if it never happened.
No I don't care. And I will vote for whoever is the GOP nominee.
I believe you.
The nonsense is being poured on thick by these people.
(so we are all clear) IMO
The reason most of the GOP seem to be engaging in nonsense arguments recently is because they have acquiesced to the near certainty that Trump really is going to be their nominee. They have realized that they will have no choice but to vote for that miserable character, that embarrassment and, quite likely, future felon.
Some of them might have realized that Trump may be ineligible for office due to the disqualification clause of the 14th amendment. Thus it is a very good possibility that the GOP will have no nominee or will have to scramble to replace an ineligible Trump.
But no matter what, they probably all realize that the GOP's support of Trump has, in effect, given the presidency in 2024 to the Ds.
I suspect the frustration is driving them all nuts. And I have no sympathy since they had the opportunity to push Trump out on Jan 20, 2021 and most have done the opposite since.
There are some crazies in Congress, but there are also a lot of professional politicians. It's easy to "understand" the crazies, but what the fuck are the pros doing?
I can only imagine that they're betting that they (individually) will survive the carnage and be well positioned to pick through the remains.
Obviously, they have abandoned any honor or dignity.
It's pretty disgusting.
I see no reason or logic behind a person who doesn't care if their candidate is guilty because they will vote for them anyway. I also call it unpatriotic.
now here come the flaggers because I dared to called some one unpatriotic
Wow - what a friggin' leap - the point is to stoke the base under the assumption that nominating Trump and energizing the R base will result in good things for the GOP. If that is the case, such 'thinking' is irrational, irresponsible, unpatriotic partisanship.
How 'bout showing us, in the article, where ANY of your "assumption" is stated.
Really be interesting to see 'cause I couldn't find it.
That was not an assumption, that was my analysis. Key on the word 'Answer' as I provide my answer for the question I posed. (hint)
In other words, it is my reasoned opinion that the author wrote this piece to stoke the base. Obviously the author is pro-Trump and thus wants to encourage his nomination by energizing supporters.
Your opinion - now whether it is "reasoned" or not is another question 'cause it is your opinion.
Yes, 1st, I provided my opinion.
Happy to see that you now understand what I wrote.
For future reference, we are all giving our opinions. That is what we typically do, we opine.
The only time we are not giving our opinions is when we have undisputed facts that serve as premises for a sound argument. That is rare.
But here is something that is not opinion:
⛬ It was wrong for Trump to make his declaration.