Is Donald Trump Too Big To Indict?
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.
Man of Steel No. 4, John Byrne
Man of Steel No. 4, John Byrne
Man of Steel No. 4, John Byrne
Man of Steel No. 4, John Byrne
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.
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.
