Below is my column in Fox.com on the indictment of former President Donald Trump and how this case is a test not just for Trump but the New York legal system.
Here is the column:
Oscar Wilde once said “The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself.”
With the release of the indictment of former President Donald Trump, Manhattan District Alvin Bragg has revealed himself as a follower of the Wilde school of legal thought. Bragg knew that he had no criminal case against Trump. However, after running on bagging Trump for some crime (any crime), Bragg knew that many would not care if he had a basis for a criminal charge. He would be lionized to be the first person to ever indict a former president in the blind rage against Trump.
After charging Trump with 34 counts, Bragg insisted that he will convict Trump of the “crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.” He insists that he will prove “attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”
For months, many have raised objections to the effort of the Manhattan District Attorney to use a flawed legal theory to essentially litigate a federal election violation that the Justice Department opted not to charge. This bootstrap theory has been widely criticized, but many in the media sought to cut off that debate by suggesting that Bragg might be basing his prosecution on some unknown crime. Last week, Michael Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis went as far to “warn all the pundits and everyone speculating…that there are lots of facts, lots of documents, lots of evidence of multiple crimes.”
We now have the indictment, and it is basically what many of us anticipated. It is a series of stacked counts of falsifying business records for the purpose of influencing the election. The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent with a lack of specificity on the underlying “secondary” felony. Bragg has done nothing more than replicate the same flawed theory dozens of times. This is where math and the law meet. If you multiply any number by zero, it is still zero.
If the New York bench retains any integrity, this case will be thrown out as legally improper with an admonition to Bragg and his office for politicizing the criminal justice process. That, however, may be asking a lot of state judges who are elected on both the trial and appellate levels. They also may prove to be lawyers on the Wilde side.
The cost, however, to the legal system will be immense. In a single indictment, Alvin Bragg bulldozed any high ground that the Democrats had after January 6th. He has fulfilled the narrative of the Trump campaign by supplying a raw and undeniable example of the politicization of the legal system. What is most shocking is that this attack on the rule of law was met with the rapturous applause of many, including lawyers and legal pundits. They not only will ignore the affront to the integrity of our legal system, but celebrate its demise.
Bragg himself threw a flag on the effort to indict Trump being pushed by a lawyer brought in as a special assistant district attorney for that purpose. Mark F. Pomerantz and his colleague Carey R. Dunne resigned — and their resignation letter was then leaked to an eager media. Pomerantz then took a step that floored many of us: he wrote a tell-all book based on the still ongoing investigation. However, Pomerantz admits that career prosecutors balked at his radical proposals to find a crime — any crime — to nail Trump. That included an entirely bonkers money laundering charge against Trump where he would be the victim of an extortion effort. In his book, Pomerantz admits that “many of the lawyers were relentlessly negative.” Some prosecutors were clearly so upset by his efforts that they “defected” from the team. He also admitted that Bragg told him “that the consensus among the group of prosecutors with whom he had been speaking was not to go forward.”
Despite objections from his colleagues who said he was undermining their efforts, Pomerantz published a book making the case against an individual who was not charged, let alone convicted. It was a grossly unprofessional and improper act. It also worked. Bragg caved to the overwhelming pressure that followed. If figures like Pomerantz was going to yield to temptation, why shouldn’t he? After all, no one wants to be the last ethical lawyer when everyone else is cashing in.
I remain hopeful that there is still a modicum of judicial integrity in New York to stand against this effort. However, this is a defining moment for many who have rationalized this abuse of the criminal justice system. For those attorneys, they have reached the point described by Robert Oppenheimer after the development of the atomic bomb. He stated “In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humour, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”
The same is true for many in our profession. While some of us have warned that Mar-a-Lago could present a serious threat to Trump, we have warned that the Bragg prosecution is the denial of the core legal principle of blind justice. This expensive, drawn out effort would not have occurred for anyone other than Donald Trump. It is not just selective prosecution, it is exclusive prosecution for Trump and Trump alone.
There is a good-faith debate over whether the President should be charged over conduct related to Mar-a-Lago and possible obstruction of justice. This is not that case. For those lawyers applauding this ignoble moment, this is our sin as a profession, and it is “knowledge which they cannot lose” in the years to come.
For all you trump fans out there, please send him all your money. I just can’t bare Lindsay Graham crying any more.
Wow..I agree with you I don’t want to see a “bare” Lindsay Graham, either. Don’t think I could “bear” it.
It really is. i cannot fathom being so full of hatred and the lust for power of our Democratic party. It’s the aristocracy’s revenge, and though I was reluctant before, I now think we should deal with it in the same fashion as the French Revolution. This is bull**** in a free country. The outcome of this will likely determine a great many things going forward, and it will likely not be pleasant. Since HR1 didn’t pass on a national level, blue states are now passing it locally. If we do not want tyranny, then we speak up NOW, or we lose our freedom forever. Non-dems (not even necessarily Conservatives) will never hold office again in these states but for the tiny counties. Wake. The. Eff. Up. America.
Logically, proving that the bookeeping entries were intended to faciliate the commission of another crime requires Bragg to prove that failure to report the hush money payment as a campaign contribution DID violate FECA. In effect, and indirectly, Bragg must interpret and enforce FECA. As a state official, does he have this right (Standing)? Probably not. In general, state officials are not allowed to prosecute federal crimes. M. Lemos, “State Enforcement of Federal Law”, NYU Law Review 86:698 (June 2011), stating at 708:
“States have no inherent power to enforce federal statutory law. As is true of private parties, states’ authority to sue under any given statute is a dependent on congressional intent. Many federal civil statutes explicitly provide for state enforcement. Those statutes single out the state attorney general as the primary agent of state enforcement and empower him or her to bring a civil action to obtain specified remedies. Notably, most state-enforcement provisions specify that state attorneys general must sue in federal court, thereby departing from the default presumption that state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over federal causes of action. Most provisions also require state enforcers to notify the relevant federal agency in advance of filing a complaint, permit the federal agency to intervene in the case, and restrict states from suing on violations that are the subject of a pending federal enforcement action.” {citations omitted]
FECA contains no provision allowing for state enforcement of federal campaign finance laws. It anticipates that criminal cases will be brought by the AG in federal courts. See sec 309. However, it does contain provisions for private parties to file suits to compel action by FECA; but no mention of state actors.
Therefore, it must be concluded that a state prosecutor does not have authority to enforce fedreral campaign laws, esp, in state courts.
It may answered that Bragg is not “enforcing” those laws but merely relying upon them to prove his case. But this is the well-known “distrinction without a difference.” Establishment of the violation of federal law is a premise to establishment of the state claim. Precedent as to the meaning of FECA will be litigated in state court, not by the FEC or DOJ in federal court.
@edward,
It could be that he’s going to use NY election laws and not Federal.
Its still going to end poorly for Bragg.
-G
Ian, yes, Bragg referred to a NY state law making it a crime to conspire to promote a candidate unlawfully. This begs the question of what is unlawful about paying hush money, even if you assume it was to promote a candidate.
Whether it’s unlawful depends on how it’s paid. If he’d paid it out of campaign funds, that wouldn’t have been illegal. But he didn’t do that. And we’re going to have to wait for confirmation in a filing about what the secondary crime was.
He paid the funds personally. How is that unlawful?
Nope. Trump didn’t pay Daniels out of funds personally. Trump had Cohen pay Daniels out of a loan that Cohen took out. Then Trump, Jr., and Weisellberg paid Cohen the reimbursement + “grossing up” out of a combination of personal funds and Trump Org funds.
Keep track of whom Trump paid with personal funds. It wasn’t Daniels. Cohen already pleaded guilty to the illegal campaign donation (an in kind donation to Trump’s campaign in paying off Daniels), and the FEC General Counsel also already said that the payment + repayment scheme was illegal (I posted the link earlier).
“Trump had Cohen pay Daniels out of a loan that Cohen took out.”
According to Cohen and an attorney who testified with first hand knowledge, that is a lie.
Post less and research more. Right now nothing you say can be trusted.
It could be that he’s going to use NY election laws and not Federal. </i
Judge Jeanine Pirro is on The Five. She spent the morning studying NY election law. The NY law covers only candidates running for state and local offices. The Judge states NY election law has zero jurisdiction in Braggs farce.
That leaves FEC. Bragg and NYC have know Jurisdiction to charge a person using a federal law.
Now we have that fact in front of us.
Bragg knows all of this. He is lying when he mentioned election law. He lies and doesn't care, because all he is doing is feeding the lie, that by sure volume of accusations Trump is in trouble. This is a game of perception, and nobody lies like Democrats.
Trump wasn’t running for any New York State office, New York County office, nor New York City office during the 2016 election, though.
@Ian
After the past seven years do you honestly believe that? I would love to share your optimism. I don’t. I just don’t. The old rules no longer apply, and the Soros dems are chip chip chipping away at things in the micro, county by county, state by state. That will add up to the macro, eventually. we either put our feet down now or give up, and I’m not prepared to do that. Do not expect anything logical, sane, or ethical to come from this debacle. We had already dug ten feet down; we might very well hit the center of the earth with this new low before we are done. That is a mighty big hole to fill in.
Ed, logically, Bragg’s actions and willingness to subvert the law force me to wonder about his ethics and morals. As he skirts the law regarding his prosecution of Trump, one can easily believe he has none. That is troublesome.
Who is Alvin Bragg? I don’t know and only have limited facts at hand. He is under 50 and worked in public Service for 20 years. I don’t know of any large cases he worked on in the private sector for those few years in between. He demonstrates he is a manipulator, so one has to question whether he is dishonest in an underhanded manner. That is something common in NY.
He is worth more than $40 Million. Where did he obtain that money?
No, proving that A was intended to accomplish B does not require that B occurred. The issue is the intention, not the completion. He still has to prove intention, but that’s different than your claim.
And yes, this will likely now end up in federal court, due to preemption.
Not right. There must have been another crime of which Trump was aware and intended to conceal, or Trump must have believed there was another crime and intended to conceal it.
I agree with you. Nothing in what I wrote is inconsistent with what you wrote just now. My point is: if you carry out A with intent to conceal B, that does not require that B actually occurred. It only requires that you had the intention. I can intend to go to the gym (or stop smoking, or eat more healthfully, or …) yet fail to do it; the failure to act doesn’t eliminate the existence of the intention.
If you are claiming B is a crime, that has to be proven. If it never happened, it is not a crime.
Read the text of the law. It only requires intent, not commission.
Gibberish.
This is wrong, it’s despicable, abhorrent, now, how is a travesty of justice stopped?
How is a festering sore healed and above all prevented?
Or is there no choice but to leave your foot off the brake and let the crash happen?
@speakup
It is. And it will have ramifications for a long time to come, whether one loves or hates Trump. It is madness, and it is 100% the province of the American left. They have sold their souls, full stop.
Over 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, the US uniparty political systems has managed to turn the US into a dumber and gayer version of the USSR.
It really is like we are in the midst of WWIII, but it’s not being fought by bullets and bombs but by bad people being placed into key positions in every sector of society to push bad and ideas and make a complete mockery of law, order, justice, and the voting system. And their primary foot soldiers are black supremacist swine like Bragg and utterly corrupt incompetents like Biden and Pelosi. And lets not forget warmonging vermin like Graham, Romney, the Cheneys and the Bushes. And the GOP is apparently in on all this.They allowed the WI supreme court to be handed over to the democrats in a perfectly winnable election yesterday. Say goodbye to voter ID in that state, which means Trump ain’t winning it if he runs in 2024.
Dear Prof Turley,
bootstrapping (present participle)
get (oneself or something) into or out of a situation using existing resources:
“the company is bootstrapping itself out of a marred financial past”
b. fuller form of boot.
In the case of Trump, I’m going with c. how to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
*if you can’t impeach Trump, who can you impeach? (that’s a rhetorical question.)
To Svelaz and Anonymous, two morons that aren’t lawyers, Turley, Andrew McCarthy, William Barr, all of the CNN lawyers, including ANDREW McCABE, say that the case is a joke and that Bragg has blown it and yet you both claim to know better!!!!
This case will never make it to trial due to the fact that the honest lawyers of the left know that it is so deeply flawed as to be a joke. Bragg will end up paying for this with his career in tatters and his end being like the DA in New Orleans.
But hey folks, Svelaz and Anonymous know more than all of the legal minds on the left and the right.
PS. Jonathan, please end the use of “Anonymous” as a name, make people pick an anonymous name so that we can differentiate between people that are just to lazy to pick a name and the one jerk that goes by Anonymous and therefore ignore him the way we ignore Svelaz.
Hey everyone, Hullbobby is once again showing us how being butt hurt looks like. Gotta say he’s doing a fine job.
“the one jerk that goes by Anonymous” is S Meyer.
Anonymous the Stupid, there are many who go by the name anonymous and you are the Jerk you mention. I should know because I named you. It stuck because it was true.
I find the charges to be ridiculous on their face. I would like to believe that Bragg has the integrity to press charges on something real and that damages the community. The entire case has not been made public, so we really do need to wait for the undocumented crime that these payments covered up.
I would think all Trump has to say is that he was trying to spare his wife and family from being dragged through the public humiliation if these charges came to light. The timing of the women coming forward is suspicious due to the desired effect they would have on the election, so the election played a part. But the protect his family defense is a slam dunk winner.
The stacked charges are a pathetic attempt to try to nail Trump on at least one of them. Not guilty of 33 is still guilty of one.
The former president’s egregious behavior over the years seems to have made him a Capone like figure – take him down on charges unrelated to his real crimes against society.
If Trump is found guilty of anything, I expect the case to be overturned in the appeals process.
I still believe that congress has a right to interview Bragg. His charges affect a federal election. As well, any prosecutor in any state can dig through the law books to find some petty crimes committed by any former president or candidate of the opposite party. It’s in the national interest to assure that we don’t become a nation where the party in power imprisons its legitimate opponents.
“He could have paid Stormy at least partially to keep Melania from attacking him with a rolling pin.”
He can make that argument in court. And it will be countered with this evidence (from the SoF):
“The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible.”
@Anon,
This will never get to trial.
It will be dismissed w prejudice.
There are so many flaws that if the judge were to ignore them and let this go to trial, he’d be in violation of his canons.
So flawed… it would be comical if it didn’t negatively impact us on the world stage.
-G
If that’s what happens, then that’s what happens, but I’m not going to pretend to tell the future.
Absolutely! I’m sure that Cohen’s testimony will be compelling and will withstand withering cross examination. Of course, I also believe that if we all clap loudly enough Tinkerbell won’t die.
.”He can make that argument in court. “
If that should be the case, tens of thousands of New Yorkers would be tried for the same illegality, and 84% of them would be Democrats.
If Republicans are getting speeding tickets for driving 78 mph in 70 mph zones—as measured by properly calibrated, properly tested radar guns—that’s justice, right? I mean, hell, the SOBs are guilty. But, if Democrats doing the same thing are not getting tickets, then, all of a sudden, we have a problem. To ensure equal treatment, as required by the 14th amendment of the Constitution, we would have to start giving tickets to everyone going 78 or tickets to no one going 78. Unless, of course, the highways are controlled by Democrats, in which case, the GOP racists are getting what they deserve.
Yielding to temptation is a particularly Republican trait… nothing is off limits. Threatening the judge, the prosecutor and oh yesterday their families. Threatening the public with death and destruction or may be a base ball bat to the head. It Trump was a Democrat he would have been impeached. As to rape, he has been sued for rape and defamation….so I think Trump has it all. If Trump was a Democrat, Republicans would have seen to it that he would already been in jail for Jan. 6. Trying to sound objective Professor doesn’t hide the fact that you are never objective when it comes to Trump or the Republicans.
Imagine believing that yielding to temptation is a political trait. Now imagine that you are of the party of clinton, epstein, weinstein, et al and saying it.
Why do you have to be a clown? Why can’t you be a grown-up? Don’t answer, we know, because you simply cannot.
But don’t stop babbling, you are helping the good guys.
“Threatening the judge, the prosecutor and oh yesterday their families.”
You mean like the Dem protestors do every day banging drums in front of Supreme Court justices family homes?
You mean like the left attacks Justice Thomas’ wife Ginni – who is not a public figure?
You mean like the Dems lob continual slanders, lies and smears attacking Justice Kavanaugh?
The Democrat party is beneath contempt.
total Hypocrisy.
Like Chucky Schumer did, when he said ““I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,”
It does warrant repeating the infamous Beria of the former Soviet Union, Give me a man I will find the crime”. This is what 21st Century America has descended to under the Progressive Regime. This country is doomed unless the silent majority wakes up and starts a counter revolution
JT’s musings about the willingness or ability of the NY Bar to stop this legal burlesque leads to sad reflections on the decline of New York State and City. For many decades, NY State was not only the most important state in the union but also an intellecutal leader in the law. Notable early lawyers included founders Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, and Chancellor Kent (the most important early legal writer). Later in the early 20th centrury, Banjamin Cardozo and William Andrews were widely respected jurists. Later yet, Augustus and Learned Hand were widely respected jurists; Indeed the latter was perhaps the greatest of American legal minds. And let us not forget Thomas Dewey, the boy prosecutor who smashed Murder Inc. But neither New York State nor its Bar holds any position of leadership now. The State and the Bar have sunk to the intellectual and moral level of Alvin Bragg, the NYT editorial page, and the braying mob waiting for Trump’s head to fall into a basket.
According to you, what part of the indictment is actually false?
The part about a felony
Well said Edward!
Ed, thanks, that is the NY I know. Today’s NY, filled with the Woke and Stupid, is an aberration. Can NY ever recover? It had fine universities, refinement, and everything that could create a great world only to be destroyed.
Attorneys admitted to practice in the State of New York are expected to comply with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York (DASSNY) publishes Ethical Guidelines for Prosecutors titled “The Right Thing.” See https://www.daasny.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Right-Thing-1.28.2021-1.pdf. * The handbook is intended to provide general guidance to prosecutors by expressing in writing the longstanding commitment of New York’s District Attorneys and their assistants to ethical prosecution and the protection of the rights of victims, defendants, and the public. This handbook summarizes aspirational principles, as well as ethical obligations created by statute, case precedent, and duly authorized rules of professional conduct. It is not intended to, and does not, create any rights, substantive or procedural, in favor
of any person, organization, or party. It may not be relied upon in any matter or proceeding, civil or criminal, nor does it create or impose any limitations on the lawful prerogatives of New York State’s District Attorneys and their staffs. Thank you, Sandra Doorley, Monroe County District Attorney, for your efforts in producing the 2021 edition of “The Right Thing.”
There are the five burroughs of New York City and then there is Upstate New York. We’re all subject to the same rules. I hope that “The Right Thing” is alive land well in Manhattan! We’ll see!
“What is most shocking is that this attack on the rule of law was met with the rapturous applause of many, including lawyers and legal pundits. They not only will ignore the affront to the integrity of our legal system, but celebrate its demise.”
“Shocking”? This “attack on the rule of law — met with rapsturous applause of — lawyers and legal pundits” is “shocking”?
No, not hardly. Nor is it even mildly surprising. There is a REASON people have been telling lawyer jokes for decades, or perhaps centuries, and it’s NOT because people have magically acquired some baseless animosity toward the profession such that lawyers have become the innocent objects of baseless attacks upon the collective character of their species.
The expression “affront to the integrity of our legal system” seems like a punchline in search of a joke.
Somehow, the notion of contemporary lawyers funtioning in our current legal system while pretending to believe that it has “integrity” reminds me of this passage from Chapter IX of Don Quixote, where the punchline is the last 9 words:
“Don Quixote of La Mancha, light and mirror of Manchegan chivalry, and the first that in our age and in these so evil days devoted himself to the labour and exercise of the arms of knight-errantry, righting wrongs, succouring widows, and protecting damsels of that sort that used to ride about, whip in hand, on their palfreys, with all their virginity about them, from mountain to mountain and valley to valley, for, if it were not for some ruffian, or boor with a hood and hatchet, or monstrous giant, that forced them, there were in days of yore damsels that at the end of eighty years, in all which time they had never slept a day under a roof, went to their graves as much maids as the mothers that bore them.”
Given Professor Turley’s continuing habit of voting for the very leftists whose behavior shocks and saddens him year after year, event after event, one is tempted to liken him to Charlie Brown, running to kick the football again and again.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is said to be the definition of insanity.
“Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is said to be the definition of insanity.”
Sure, but it was only Albert Einstein who said that, and he wasn’t a lwyer so how smart could he really have been?
Shaking of head and rolling of eyes. Sheesh. Joe Biden, if he weren’t so tireless and dedicated a public servant could probably think rings around Albert Einstein.
/sarc
Same with Hunter Biden — he being a chimp off the old block. (I wish I could remember who it was that came up with that variation on the old expression.)
All kidding aside, I would expect far more cogent intelligence from chimpanzees than anyone from that family.
Well, certainly you’ll never hear a chimpanzee say anything as stupid as some of the stuff that pops out of Joetard’s mouth daily — chimps being smart enough to follow Twain’s advice about “when in doubt, leave it out.”
It will take the Biden family another 200,000 years of evolution to get THAT smart.
I recall some right-ish winger from England writing about watchina a U.S. morning talk show. The first guest introduced his ferret, or mongoose, or some stoat or other, which animal proceeded to poop on camera. The guy watching was not favorably impressed. Then he heard the talking, political guests, and found himself more and more approving the “[comparatively] trenchant wit with which the creature evacuated its bowels.” Bidens make me long for the well-reasoned discourse of rodents.
“… watching a U.S. morning talk show. The first guest introduced his ferret, or mongoose, or some stoat or other, which animal proceeded to poop on camera …”
Sounds like the guy might have mistakenly been watching a congressional hearing on C-SPAN.
I would suppose that this means it will be open season on Democrats all through the Red States. I would hate to see that happen but the only way to get this stuff stopped would be to launch an all out legal attack. You will have to do this at the state level because the DOJ as presently constituted will take no action.
I would start off by sending an official enquiry to every democratic office holder demanding an official legal statement that they have no NDA’s ever signed while in office or during elections. Does not mean you have to take action but the implications would be obvious.
Line Up “Ladies”, and Men, or People of another Persuasion
If you had: An explicit Affair, Performed Fellatio or Intercourse, A one-Night Stand, Preformed a Paid for Sexual Act, Covered for your “Boss”, Had a Love Child or Abortion, of a DNC Candidate or Politician that the real Facts were ‘swept under the rug’. Then please call or write Us.
N.D.A.s are not applicable (enforceable) Under Oath of the Court, there is no censorship in Court. You can feel free to Testify to the truth.
We are interested in your side of the story and would like you to testify as to the intimate details of the sexual transgression(s) or compensation for your silence. Call now, the Trump Defense Team is waiting. This is your opportunity.
Can I get a Witness – there is plenty of Gods work at hand to do – “Amen!”
Well, the indictment has been enormously effective for Democrats and the upcoming 2024 election as it certainly takes the focus of Biden’s classified records mess, Hunter’s laptop, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Fentanyl pouring across an open southern border, and ESPECIALLY all of those Billions flowing into Ukraine to antagonize a nuclear-powered Russia. It has achieved the intended purpose. Getting a conviction ? Irrelevant really. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Bill Clinton ACTUALLY RAPED women…and paid them off… and Democrats LOVE him!
Trump proved with his indictment that there is no justice for ALL unless ALL means Dems. War of some sort is coming. Question is which one comes first–hot cold war or hot civil war. We’re in a cold war foreign (with China and Russia) and cold war domestic. Not sure which one is more frightening–a war with China with these Bozos in charge in DC and America’s big cities or a civil war between American citizens whereby Christian conservatives get locked up or worse. Either way, where’s in deep doo doo (technical term).
what legal system? The one where Obama, Hillary and the FBI, DOJ, etc Conspire to overthrow the president and NO ONE GOES TO JAIL? The one where the VP Biden’s son hunter travels to China on AF 2 and collect millions for the corrupt biden family? Republicans need to TAKE AWAY the money cut 50% of fed government…cut off all funding and loans to colleges and cities. Democrats are fighting a CIVIL WAR!
“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.“
George Orwell, 1984
One cannot help but see the uncanny parallels between this book and our current world. It is definitely worth a read again.
This is true.
Agree wholeheartedly. You might also want to give Kafka’s The Trial a fresh look.
In the American dual justice tradition, this legal system will grind on this case until someone either runs out of money or dies. The Chipmunk and the democrat machine understand that law-fare and election rigging go hand in hand, and at the end of the day, is the reason why people like Trump, DeSantis, Biden, and Hillary are the best American can come up with. Why? Because no one else is self destructive enough to run.