Sorry, Trump Ain’t Goin’ To Prison For “Criminal Schemes”
It’s as if Jack Smith read a 1950s-era civics textbook for fifth-graders and used it to make his arguments
In the above, I present Exhibit A for how well Jack Smith (The “United States”) protected the identities of his (in this case, dead) witness. My AI assistant Claud(.ai) had no problem filling in the redactions.
If they’re not going to put Chris Christie in jail for closing down the George Washington Bridge they sure aren’t going to put Trump is jail for trying to talk Mike Pence into playing dumb about who won Amerika’s 2020 beauty pageant for blowhards.
Jack Smith’s basic argument is that Trump fraudulently tried to win the election by using his Presidential authority, as a candidate — a private citizen — to change the election results.
I’m no lawyer, but I stand by my belief that there’s no case brought before Amerika’s courts that expensive lawyers can’t get wealthy, or politically connected clients out the back door to a waiting limousine.
And I’m talking about well-argued and supported cases with things like evidence of physical wrong-doing.
If I had to pick a section of the brief to summarize Jack Smith’s case, it would be this:
True to his word, that’s exactly what Trump did — fight like hell. He lied with numbers and facts. I would not call his behavior Presidential in any way, shape or form. He behaved, in fact, like he has ALWAYS behaved.
If he had ordered someone to tear up ballots and sent a police force to check that it was done, perhaps Smith would have a case.
But Trump didn’t force anyone, as President of the United States, to create or destroy votes. He only asked them to.
He asked them too multiple times. He yelled. He cajoled. He did things as the President that he did on the Apprentice.
Okay, time to get serious.
Smith presumes there is a separation between the private and public in government.
He ignores the simple fact that — in reality — both the Democrat and Republican parties are private entities that run the government.
True, it is the ideal taught in political science, that our representatives leave their party affiliation at the door, but in practice almost no one adheres to it. That is, we accept that every official elected to office doesn’t separate their private interests, including those of their political party, from their public work.
Because of that, for every “scheme” Smith accuses Trump of pursuing the defense will be able to present a limitless number of similar schemes perpetrated by Democrats in the past. Sure, I believe Trump’s are especially hurtful to the country, but I don’t see how they can legally be separated from other schemes rife in politics.
Keep in mind, whenever a Congressman or Senator is interviewed on TV, the lower-thirds title always reads “Republican ___”, or “Democrat ___”
For Jack Smith (“The United States”) to float the idea that Trump did things as a candidate that we were not his to do in the capacity of a President flies against that daily reality.
We accept that most office-holders are always campaigning. We accept that the laws that limit it are weak. In practice, both the Democrat and Republican parties raise whatever money they need to keep their political parties duopoly intact.
In Biden’s State of the Union address, which no one would argue is done in Biden’s private capacity, or should be part of campaigning, he said, “We have two ways to go: Republicans can cut Social Security and give more tax breaks to the wealthy…”
Why is he addressing “Republicans”? They’re a private political party. The “Republicans”, as a private political party, should have nothing to do with legislation (for the people), right? In theory ‘yes’. In practice?
Biden later says, “Folks, I would respectfully suggest my Republican friends owe it to the American people: Get this bill done. We need to act now.” He’s saying what we all know to be true. Nothing gets done unless both private political parties agree to it. He’s not asking official representatives against the bill to change their mind. He’s addressing a collection of individuals who belong to a private political party that puts its interests first.
Similarly, Biden put the Democratic Party first when he gave his State of the Union speech.
Over the past couple of centuries two private political parties have succeeded in taking over the process of elections. The last independent to serve in Congress was in 1952. Almost no Americans can remember. The government has been privatized for so long no one is alive who remembers it any other way.
When Trump says the Democrats stole the election from him it’s certainly debatable if the Presidential election of 2020 was “stolen” from him. But it’s not debatable that both parties have stolen the “elections” from all citizens who might consider running for office independently.
Worse than a candidate needing the funding and connections from one of these private political parties, both parties work tirelessly to keep independents from gaining office (even if those independents have similar platforms).
When votes are counted, they are not counted for votes going towards private individuals, they’re going toward votes for what individuals the private parties of Democrats or Republicans gave their support to.
We can see this clearly, today, in that Kamala Harris was never voted to represent the Democrats in a primary. She was chosen behind closed doors in a private club to represent them as the candidate for President. At least the Republicans gave Nikki Haley a chance. Again, I’m not in favor of either party. But if people really cared about fair elections they would demand that the Democratic party run an open primary, even though, again, only those the Democrats’ leadership chose would be able to run.
At least in Iran voters get multiple candidates (picked by the regime).
Very, very few Americans want to look that truth square in the face.
When in office, officials should not talk about private parties in their business of governance. The President should leave his party affiliation at the door before he enters the White House.
Yet they do talk about their private party talking points–ALL THE TIME–which further legitimizes the private parties.
Because almost all of them do it, all the time, there is no chance Jack Smith can argue that Trump acted differently than any other government official. He cannot reasonably argue that Trump separates his job as President from his work as a candidate. (Lower down in the Brief Smith points this out but ignores it anyway).
Trump only said things out loud that both parties say behind closed doors. Does anyone, Republican or Democrat, truly believe their own party won’t try to cheat if they can get away with it? For the most part, the public isn’t interested in cheating, per se. Everyone cheats a little bit. The fascination is how some can get away with it.
Trump has made what used to be closed-door institutional cheating visible, which is entertaining for everyone — especially those who feel cheated by the government.
Why is this happening now? It’s happening because the public trust in government is NILL. Trump can exploit the obvious hypocrisy of the system for his own personal gain.
Let me repeat. The elections are not about individuals serving in government. They are about two parties putting forward individuals to serve in government. Sure, you can say individuals start political careers without parties and then join the best fit. Even Bernie Sanders had to join the Democrats in his bid for President (though they forced him out in the end). It doesn’t matter if Trump was a private citizen serving in the office of President when he tried to win the election through “fraudulent” means. The election was never about him, the individual, or the election process.
The battle is between two private political parties. In that sense, Jack Smiths’ case is inconsequential, irrelevant and superfluous.
Jack Smith’s case is a lame witch-hunt spurred on by the Democrats. They don’t expect Jack Smith to win. I’m not saying that because I like Trump. I despise Trump.
Trump’s genius is to point out a truth, obvious to everyone, but never discussed, and then twist it to his favor. Democrats can’t change the mind of his supporters because 98% of what he says about is true to them about corruption (elections are rigged in that it’s a game between two teams both controlled by the wealthy and powerful).
If the 2% of what he says is not true — specific election lies — what does that matter in the scheme of things? The powers that be, which his supporters identify as Democrats, will get their way.
He understands that the position of President is a figure-head. Like the star of a movie. He doesn’t expect, or even want to write the script. That’s for others.
For Trump the Congress and the Senate are like the show-runners of the Apprentice. They give him a story-line and he improvises.
Corporate interests don’t look to curry favor with Trump because he can’t remember a promise he kept for longer than five minutes. Their whole approach, while he was in office, was to stay out of his way.
Nothing changed in the nuts and bolts of running America. Corporate lobbyists and wealthy people give to candidates of both parties. That means they always have an equal number of Congressmen or Senators to influence. When it comes to legislation, they don’t need specific Congressmen to get what they want, they only need enough to either put forward what they want or block it.
Again, the last truly independent Congressman served in 1952. Over 70 years ago.
Trump didn’t say specifically how Democrats stole the election, and no one really cared.
The case against Trump won’t work because there is no line between one’s private interests (your political party) and public representation. Trump is acting in a way that benefits the Republican party. Republicans probably don’t agree with most of what he says but he gets them votes by exploiting public distrust in the government and, in the end, that’s all that matters to them.
Again, each political party is a private organization interested only in its propagation.
This is the same for all elected officials who are Democrats. They both blame each other for whatever happens; again, in public and in private. When has an elected official ever said, “I disagree with my party and believe x is true.” I’ve never seen it.
It would be good if it were illegal for government officials to talk about political parties. But that’s a pipe-dream. Yet, if that were the case then YES, we could prosecute people like Trump for fraud. But until then, there’s no basis for this claim.
I know, some of you reading this want to scream at me! That Trump is bringing on the far-right. People who are violent. Who want to burn down the homes of immigrants, etc.
If only it were that simple.
Why do some Republicans use violence over Democrats? The simple reason is they believe in a strong hierarchy of power based on money and power. They would rather curry favor from a rich person for more money than have a government tax the rich and distribute that money to all, including them. You can call them selfish. But is selfishness a crime? The Constitution says “pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” It says nothing about how people should do that, through capitalism, socialism, or anything else.
If anything, because the constitution did NOT eliminate slavery, or let women vote, it is clear that the country is founded on a similar mindset as the Republicans. That doesn’t mean they’re right. I’m just arguing that the Republicans aren’t some new way of thinking about how we should live or be governed.
A winning argument to me would be that we accept there is no line between public and private and to require the highest standard of care be taken. Similar to how a doctor must treat any wounded soldier the same, no matter which side they are on. The problem with such an argument is it begs the question: why is there no longer a separation between private and public in government office.
You tell me.
