Trump, No Victim of Circumstance

The indictment, the third as of now, has been revealed, and legal issues of intent and evidence aside, not to mention the fact that the evidence comes not out of thin air but the mouths and writings of Republicans, co-conspirators and witnesses on the White House payroll, should be sufficient for even his most ardent sycophants to take a step back and mutter, “he’s innocent until proven guilty, so let’s see what the trial brings.”

But that’s not how this works when it comes to the oddity of Donald Trump. So far, it appears that his defenders in the past remain his defenders in the present, and likely his defenders in perpetuity. The defense isn’t that he didn’t do it, really. There is no doubt some will believe this is all a lie and that the man whom their deity deigned to save our national soul would do no wrong. But most are more practical about it.

What about Hunter Biden, eh? Curious that Trump’s latest indictment comes just at the moment the national attention needs to be distracted from Hunter Biden and the Biden crime family.

What about the First Amendment, that right you love so dearly and which even the prosecutor admits protects lies (if lies they be) about who won the election?

Why didn’t this happen two years ago, since almost all of this was known back then, long before Trump announced he was running again for 2024, and yet there was no indictment to be tried and acquitted before he threatened Biden’s re-election?

Why are there two tiers of justice, one for Democrats and another for Republicans, especially when that Republican is Donald Trump against whom the weaponized justice system has aimed all its guns?

How is it possible that Trump can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia, that swamp of Trump haters and deep staters, and before a federal judge who has already proven how much she despises the patriots who fought in vain to save Democracy on January 6th?

Yet again, it’s the play of questions designed to raise doubts about the integrity of the system. Just as there was never any evidence to show that the Big Lie wasn’t a big lie, but only doubts sown by the toxic combination of lies, ignorance and undue passion, the challenges to Trump’s guilt aren’t grounded in affirmative or provable defenses, but in trying to raise more doubts based upon cynicism at the periphery.

Hunter Biden wasn’t the President of the United States, but the wayward son of a president. Did the DoJ go easy on him, giving him a gift no other wayward son would receive? Perhaps, and if so, it would be wrong and reflect a failure of integrity on the part of the government. But if so, then the solution is that Hunter Biden should be treated no differently than any other defendant rather than get the fortunate son treatment. This doesn’t make Trump any less guilty, and unlike Hunter Biden, Trump was the President of the United States.

This all should have been hashed out a year ago, at least, but the Attorney General who might have been a Supreme Court justice, Merrick Garland, decided not to pursue it and cost a nation two years. But here we are, awkwardly facing a presidential campaign that was designed to make prosecution as awkward as possible and build in a ready-made excuse of political prosecution, even though the existence of evidence is undeniable. Whether that evidence will suffice for a conviction is another matter, but unlike the cries that Biden stole the election, there is evidence.

David French argues that we need a trial to flush this cancer from the body politic.

Smith has brought a difficult case. But it’s a necessary case. Foot soldiers of the Trump movement are in prison. Its allied militia leaders are facing justice. And now the architect of our national chaos will face his day in court. This is the trial America needs.

Whether a trial or three will be the answer or just another brick in the wall remains to be seen. But at some point, Trump’s adoring fans need to face the reality that despite the myriad excuses, all of this came about at Trump’s small hand. Contrary to his pretense, he’s not the biggest victim ever, perpetually getting sand kicked in his face by all his enemies, even when he was the most powerful (but helpless) man in the world. Trump is no victim of circumstance, but a loser who would do anything to avoid the humiliation of being a loser.

If you’re so inclined, have your say and get it out of your system.

22 thoughts on “Trump, No Victim of Circumstance

    1. norahc

      If it was a novel, Garland would have planned from the time he got appointed to bring charges so he could have his revenge in a master plan.

  1. Hal

    As Twain observed, “It’s easier to get someone to believe a lie, than to accept they’ve been lied to”.

    (Quote may be apocryphal, sentiment is consistent w/ Twain’s writings.)

  2. Mike V.

    Is Trump a conniving huckster? Most assuredly. Is contesting an election legal under the law? Yes. By charging in Washington, the prosecutor is almost guaranteed a conviction.

    But contesting the election was, and it allowed under the law. I doubt anything the trial brings out will change the minds of some Trump supporters.

    If the government is going to criminalize contesting an election by every means available, what precedent does that set? A troubling one, I think.

    1. DaveL

      Some of the means used by Trump to contest the election pretty clearly went beyond legal challenges and protest covered by the First Amendment. For example, does anybody really believe they’re legally entitled to submit “alternative” slates of electors to Congress for its consideration and possible certification?

      1. B. McLeod

        And yet, none of his lunatic tactics worked, or even had any reasonable prospect of working. The true Big Lie is the continuing Democratic effort to magnify Trump’s silliness into some kind of Reichstag fire that they can use to position the tottering Biden for an easy reelection.

        1. Mark Daniel Myers

          This is insightful because only successful crimes are worthy of prosecution. I’d forgotten about the “But it didn’t work” defense, which is, of course, absolute.

  3. Mark Daniel Myers

    Do you think Trump loses First Amendment protections when he makes “statements directed at producing imminent lawless action, and likely to do so?” Counterman, quoting Brandenburg.

    I think he does.

  4. B. McLeod

    The indictments actually seem to be adding to his support. Possibly due to a perception that using the criminal system to fix the 2024 election is a step even closer to life in a banana republic.

    1. Mark Daniel Myers

      It’s like when our esteemed host wrote:

      “Yet again, it’s the play of questions designed to raise doubts about the integrity of the system. Just as there was never any evidence to show that the Big Lie wasn’t a big lie, but only doubts sown by the toxic combination of lies, ignorance and undue passion, the challenges to Trump’s guilt aren’t grounded in affirmative or provable defenses, but in trying to raise more doubts based upon cynicism at the periphery.”

      You saw that as a challenge to provide a fresh, steaming example.

  5. phv3773

    “Every means available” includes raising an army, assassinating opposition leaders, and blowing up houses of government with kegs of black powder. Sovereigns are pretty sensitive to that sort of thing.

  6. Jake

    This hot-take theory that a public orgy of conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction is nothing more than protected speech is so embarrassing for the people that trot it out. I wish somebody could make Americans feel shame again.

  7. L. Phillips

    I’m a simple man so it would be oh so much easier for me if our choices were not between a serial liar/financial grifter with a ridiculous hairdo who is under indictment and a serial liar/financial grifter with a ridiculous hairdo who should be under indictment.

  8. Guitardave

    Unnamed sources sent me a copy of Jacks Spotifly playlist.
    Coming in at #1, in the ‘most replays’ category…

  9. Elpey P.

    So this is how Trump felt when he told police to take their hand away when putting suspects in cars.

  10. Hal

    For some reason, neither Howl or Guitar Dave’s choices are showing up for me today…

    I can see that they posted, but no content/ image.

    I hope one of them chose “Victim or the Crime” as it is so appropriate.

    If not, and our host is in a generous and forgiving mood, here’s a link;

    [Ed. Note: I’ll give you this one, you deadhead.]

  11. PK

    It’s too late. He’s going to run and win the nomination for what is now his party. We are going to be subjected to yet another complete shit show. Stupid people will run with whatever conspiracy theory floats their boats. We will point fingers at each other. We will accuse each other of terrible things. It’s all disgusting, embarrassing, and scandalous. The only way now to stop him is to beat him and make him a loser again. Then we can start chanting lock him up or whatever. Not that anything appears likely to help undo the schism.

    Thanks for letting me get some of the doom and gloom out.

    1. Keith

      On the bright side, if he wins from his jail cell, there’s no need to shout “lock him up”.

      1. norahc

        He’ll never see the inside of a cell. I mean, how do you give him a Secret Service detail inside a jail cell?

  12. Bryan Burroughs

    I hate to say it, but this is certainly the weaker of the two indictments brought by Smith. With a few notable exceptions*, much of what Trump did was protected speech. It was atrocious behaviour on Trump’s part, but taking him out of the picture how many Trumpsters called their own state legislators and demanded that they decertify the election results? Are we going to criminalize that? It’s hard to craft a legal reason that Trump would be disallowed from doing the same thing, even under blatantly false pretenses.

    The behaviour detailed in this indictment is far more troubling, far more serious, and yet, it’s mostly not criminal. It’s behaviour that voters should be holding Trump accountable for. If only we had a sane electorate within the GOP that would do that.

    * Threatening the Georgia Secretary of State with a DOJ investigation and making slates of false electors are both plainly illegal conduct. The pressure campaign on Pence was flirting with the line, especially after courts said the scheme was illegal. And while I think Trump sent a mob to the Capital to prevent certification, absent striking additional details from the now curiously silent Mark Meadows, it’s going to be tough to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comments are closed.