Commentary
Without getting into the legal weeds of the 37-count indictment of former President Trump, I opened with my commentary yesterday with my view that the Deep State is again interfering with a presidential election.
Not only is the indictment of a former president unprecedented, it is the first time the party in office has indicted the leading candidate of the opposition party.
Using the criminal justice system to prosecute political rivals is a hallmark of the Banana Republic. There was Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Danial Ortega in Nicaragua, and Evo Morales in Bolivia.
Don’t pooh, pooh it. If you think it ridiculous or conspiratorial to believe that an American president and his Justice Department would resort to indicting an opposition candidate, you need only recall what Hillary Clinton’s machine concocted to implicate Trump with Russia. And remember, that her senior policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, is now Biden’s national security advisor.
Those of us on the right must be heard on this matter. We cannot allow the leftist media to again cover up the actions of the Deep State, as they did in 2020 when the FBI and former intelligence officers employed dirty tricks designed to favor Joe Biden’s election.
Despite the two impeachments, Liz Cheney’s Jan. 6 show trial and the series of indictments in New York, that have dogged him for years, he is again a candidate for president with poll numbers that remain stable.
With all of the hullabaloo over Trump’s possession of classified documents, apparently “unauthorized possession” are the key words if the presidential records are indeed the property of the government.
Yet, (22) U.S.C Section 2205(3) states: “Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208 of this title … the presidential records of a former president shall be available to such former president or the former president’s designated representative.”
As Francis Menton points out in his Manhattan Contrarian piece, “Thoughts On The Federal Trump Indictment: It’s Shockingly Weak,” “the position of the FBI and Justice is that any failure to be completely forthright with them is a crime, even when they are torturing you by corruptly investigating you for something that you have an absolute right to do.”
It seems that lying is the “crime” frequently asserted in the indictment. We know from the Mueller and Durham reports that lying is not a crime, however, if spoken by an FBI agent.
It will be interesting to see if the Florida judge, Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, and the jury agree with Justice’s application of the word.
More of What Others are Saying
“You my dear reader, know. You know it (Smith’s indictment) is the latest writ of attainder pronounced against Trump by the regime.” – Roger Kimball, American Greatness
“Americans will inevitably see this as a Garland-Biden indictment, and they are right to think so.” – Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal
I found the comments by Utah’s two Republican senators, Mike Lee, and Mitt Romney, particularly interesting.
Lee referred to the Banana Republic examples I mentioned above, adding, “It’s an affront to our country’s glorious 246-year history of independence from tyranny, for the incumbent president of the United States to leverage the machinery of justice against a political rival. Such an act of absolute disrespect echoes despotism, making it fundamentally at odds with American democratic values.”
Romney, a RINO in my view, who twice voted for Trump’s impeachment, referred to Special Prosecutor Smith’s indictment as “an overreach (that) sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damaged the public’s faith in our justice system,” but continues to say that “Trump’s character and conduct make him unfit for office.”
Writing in the American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, cited the weaknesses he viewed in the indictment in his piece, “7 Reasons to be Highly Skeptical of the Legitimacy of the Indictments of Trump.”
May God continue to bless the United States of America despite the left’s miscalculated stain on our democracy with its unprecedented move to eliminate an opposition candidate.
