Trump’s Detractors, Lacking Confidence in the Voters, Turn to Prosecutors

T. Belman. As I recall, Conrad Black was a victim himself of judicial overreach and Trump came to his aid.

A vast canvas of confected legal harassment and monstrous defamation is being assembled and discharged against the 45th president.

By CONRAD BLACK, THE SUN     Monday, July 24,

The Trump-haters are now somnambulating toward the cliff. There is not and never was any serious argument against President Trump’s right to seek the presidency again except for two: proper people didn’t like him and he was going to overturn a bipartisan system in which many were very comfortable.

Behind these two objections, and neither can be argued very convincingly, a vast canvas of confected legal harassment and monstrous defamation has been assembled and discharged. Finally, all that is left is the prayerful hope that the American prosecutocracy can bring him down; the voters be damned.

As mentioned here last week, Peggy Noonan proudly stated her encapsulation of Trump-hate, after a friend’s recitation of some of his achievements as president: “He’s a bad man.” An approximately equally fervent and fluent Trump hater, but from the other side of the political spectrum, Maureen Dowd, took a similar perspective in the New York Times on Sunday: “A man is running to run the government he tried to overthrow while he was running it, even as he is running to stay ahead of the law.”

The assumption is and has always been, whether anyone actually believed it or not, that Mr. Trump is a chronic lawbreaker, almost a gangster, who is perversely motivated to reduce America to chaos. Ms. Dowd asked hopefully, “Has Trump finally run out of time. … Are those ever-loving walls really closing in this time? We were expecting (this from) the investigation into ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia and his potential obstruction of justice.”

She overlooks the inconvenient fact that the Russian collusion argument was not only a fiction; it was a malicious defamation devised by operatives of the Clinton campaign and advanced by the directors of the FBI, CIA, NIA, and other prominent supposedly nonpolitical figures in the Justice Department, with the knowledge of President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Clintons.

Ms. Dowd confines her lamentation to “regarding obstruction of justice, the final report [of Robert Mueller] was flaccid, waffling, legalistic” — because there was no obstruction. This is Trump-hate-speak for expressing a complete lack of interest in the fact that Mr. Trump no more colluded with Russia than Ms. Dowd and Ms. Noonan did, did not obstruct anyone, and Robert Mueller and his “dream team” of partisan “legal talent” failed to manufacture or distort enough facts and transgressions to strangle the Trump presidency.

Trump-haters, having little choice left, have decided which hill to die on: the mass production assembly line of spurious Trump indictments. Even Ms. Dowd allows that the special prosecutor ”has a Herculean task before him. He must present a persuasive narrative that Trump and his henchmen and women were determined to pull off a coup.”

There is no evidence nor any conceivable possibility that Mr. Trump had any thought of a coup. The idea that he had any thought at all of a violent overthrow of government is so fatuous that in any other circumstances except the frequent punctuation of sane political discourse by the faithful geyser of Trump-hate, any people uttering such nonsense would be urged by their friends to seek psychiatric help.

The Dowd column was a bit of a disappointment: it started out as a fiery tocsin but gradually dwindled down to the demoralized admission that “Trump ultimately might not be charged with staging an insurrection or sedition. And that would be a shame. For the first time, a president who lost an election nakedly attempted to hold onto power and override the votes of millions of Americans. If that isn’t sedition, it’s hard to figure what is.”

Here again is the admission that Trump’s enemies refuse to recognize the real point of contention. This, as I and a few others have said and written until we were almost blue in the face, is the first time in American elections when questions have been raised about the validity of millions of mailed-in ballots, in part because few of them were cast under the eyes of scrutineers in voting places.

Voting and vote counting rules were fundamentally changed especially in a number of swing states and the process of change was not enacted as the Constitution requires, by vote of the state legislatures. This is the cold Trump-hate terror that dare not speak its name: the election may indeed have been stolen.


July 26, 2023 | Comments »

Leave a Reply