Is Donald Trump Too Big To Indict?

No.

We've started the countdown to Donald Trump's possible, maybe, but who knows, really perp walk, and I'll hear no lectures from you against schadenfreude. This is gonna be fun. But wait, what if finally arresting Trump for something gives him exactly what he wants? Rick Wilson at the Lincoln Project tweeted, "Donald Trump is highly likely to get the nomination regardless, but I believe the indictments will, in fact, secure it for him because the base will rally."

 Bret Stephens at the New York Times said Democrats would "live to regret" indicting Trump. (I'll risk it.) Even former Barack Obama senior adviser David Axelrod warned, "Of all the offenses for which Trump is under investigation, the Stormy Daniels hush money is probably the least meaningful. If he's going to be indicted in any of these probes, this the one he probably would want first to try and color all of them as politically-motivated."

 Trump's pants-shitting meltdown this weekend would suggest he doesn't personally see an upside if Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicts him for the Stormy Daniels shenanigans.There was no bad-ass Dirty Harry "make my day" declaration, and Trump lacks the patience and skill for an effective "don't throw me in the briar patch" long con.

None

— (@)  

It's hilarious that Trump supporters can read their mad-MAGA king's all-caps hysterics and seriously believe that he'd stare down Russia and communist China. Alvin Bragg is hardly Vladimir Putin. However, the brother will become a national hero if he busts Trump. Everyone's gonna dance to that hit rap song, "Bragged That Trump Ass." If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis indicts Trump, the lyric "DA Fani burned Trump's fanny" writes itself. (I'm hardly the rap version of Randy Rainbow, though, specifically because I made that reference.)

PREVIOUSLY:

 Surely Trump Wants His Followers To 'TAKE OUR NATION BACK' In A Peaceful, Zip-Tie-Free Way 

 Trump Did THREE Perfect Calls To Overturn Georgia? Go To Three Prisons! 

Conservative columnist David Frum tweeted, "Former presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted in 2011 for redirecting other people's money to buy an ex-lover's silence. He was acquitted. Lesson: juries allow leeway for messy personal lives, even if the mess generates a campaign finance violation."

That's a weird lesson. It suggests that after OJ Simpson's acquittal, DAs should've given up on prosecuting men who murdered their wives. Isn't it possible that the Edwards and Trump cases are fundamentally different beyond their superficial similarity? Frum speculated that "prosecutors may think: Edwards was only acquitted because he faced a friendly jury in North Carolina — but Trump can be convicted because may face an unfriendly jury in New York."

Edwards was acquitted on only one charge and the jury deadlocked on the other five. Also, "unfriendly jury" is different from hostile or outright prejudicial. Trump certainly won't receive special treatment, but while the majority of Manhattan voters backed Biden, that doesn't mean Trump can't get a fair trial. Frum's concern trolling here is bolstering the Republican narrative.

Will Chamberlain, who is apparently a lawyer, argued that indicting Trump is, well, just plain mean. He tweeted, "For a democracy to function, the major political parties have a minimum amount of respect for one another Indicting a former President and a current Presidential candidate on ticky-tacky crap is the opposite of that."

Unless Chamberlain suffers from advanced Memento disease, he should recall that former President Trump refused to concede the election he lost, sabotaged a peaceful transition of power during a pandemic , and didn't even attend his successor's inauguration. But it's typical of conservatives to demand one-sided "respect."

 Chamberlain added, "As a party and a movement we will have to be unified and ruthless in our response. Every opportunity to perp walk and indict a Democrat will have to be taken. No unilateral disarmament. If Democrats indict Trump they dishonor every Republican."

This is some classic supervillain rhetoric, and it reminds me of the 1980s version of Lex Luthor, who was literally based on Trump. When Luthor callously endangers the lives of innocent people so he can "test" Superman's powers, the mayor orders his arrest and Superman even does the honors himself. This sets off Luthor's unhinged war against Superman. The anti-anti-Trump brigade would argue this war and its resulting collateral damage is all Superman's fault for humiliating Luthor.

 Conservative Erick Erickson tweeted, "The people who want to lock him up, do not appreciate the backlash to arresting Trump that'll happen." That seems like a threat posing as a prediction. MAGA and those in the anti-anti-Trump contingent believe they aren't responsible for their own actions. If they support a corrupt, criminal sociopath, it's because you forced them do so. Luthor would later keep kryptonite on his person as "protection" against Superman, and when that gave him cancer, he blamed Superman not his own comical ignorance about the dangers of radioactive materials.

 www.youtube.com   

Trump should receive the full force of the law that he keeps breaking. We can't let all his huffing and puffing blow down democracy.

  Follow Stephen Robinson on  Twitter if it still exists.  

Did you know SER has his own YouTube Channel? Well, now you do, so go subscribe right now!

Subscribe to the Wonkette YouTube Channel for nifty video content!

Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty.