My Observations on the Trump Indictment Over January 6th
What is surprising to me is that there are people in this country, particularly those who are so blinded by their hatred of Donald Trump, that they think that it is acceptable for the party in charge to politically target the opposition leader right before an election and to release the indictments all within months of each other. These people claim to be proponents of democracy and the choice of the people, and yet, they are cheering on the elimination of one of those choices. The charges could have been brought at any time within the last couple years, but instead, they were released almost simultaneously in what seems like a coordinated effort. The Democratic Party is attempting to imprison their rival for 717.5 years, and these people genuinely do not think that this is excessive. What other politician in the history of this country has ever received anything like this? Is it really that Donald Trump is evil and the worst human being to have ever occupied the White House, or is there something else going on here?
Of course, Hillary Clinton used a private server for her work as secretary of state, was potentially hacked and became a risk to national security, bleached her emails (permanently removing them) and smashed some of her devices after being issued a subpoena, participated in a pay-to-play corruption scheme, and fabricated a false report about Trump’s collusion with Russia that got the FBI to investigate her rival; and she got off without a single charge. She then had the audacity to appear on the show of chief queen of propaganda, Rachel Maddow. Donald Trump is facing ninety-one charges over four indictments (two federal, one from the state of Georgia, and one from New York County or Manhattan).
The FBI and other elements within our government are conspiring with the Democratic Party, and if the system of justice held all politicians equally under the law, Clinton would have been charged and the FBI would not have investigated Trump for Russia collusion. Any sane person, or someone who is looking at this objectively, would be able see that something is wrong here. You do not indict a political opposition leader on charges right before election season and think that everything is fine. Clearly, this is political maneuvering.
As far as the actual charges are concerned, I want to briefly cover the second federal indictment (third total indictment) brought forth by Special Counsel Jack Smith of the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (under Merrick Garland). The forty-five page document (yes, I read the entire thing) barely touches on January 6th, and for what should be obvious reasons, it does not call what Trump supporters did as an insurrection or coup attempt. Instead, Smith’s ingenious political skills kicked in, and he focused largely on the fake electors scheme and the potential threats against state officials. This is exactly what a prosecutor would do if he or she wanted to eliminate a political opponent without seeming too partisan to the jury. To those with their anti-Trump blinders on, this will seem like a fair trial that has everything following the books.
Most of the serious charges circulate around the fact that a few “co-conspirators” (not necessarily Trump himself) tried to pressure officials or find legal means for challenging the election. Although Democrats like to pretend that they are angels and that they would never question election results, you can view a whole twelve-minute video of clips of Democratic politicians claiming that past elections were rigged, stolen, suppressed, and unfair. It appears that the only election that they think should not be questioned was the 2020 one, where their enemy lost.
Regardless, it is not illegal to challenge election results, litigate in the court system, or look for ways to “find votes.” The problem that Trump may face is if the court can prove that there were threats behind his attempts to do this. This bleeds into the Georgia indictment, as Trump had a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to attempt to persuade him to cast doubt in the state’s election count. However, despite Trump making it appear that there would be consequences for not finding the 11,780 votes (he could have been referring to the fact that Georgia could be in trouble if there was election fraud and the state did nothing to stop it), Raffensperger clearly did not play along and did not entertain the idea of changing the results of the Georgia election, so arguing that this was a threat is perhaps overkill and partisan.
There was a similar situation where one of Trump’s “co-conspirators” texted the Michigan senate majority leader to try to get the legislature to pass a resolution to suggest that the election was in dispute, but not only did the official not engage, Trump was not directly involved (are candidates and their allies not allowed to ask state officials to challenge the results?). If it can be proven that Trump did legitimately threaten officials, that would be serious, but otherwise, this is just a political witch hunt.
The fake electors scheme could be serious as well, but again, it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that laws were broken in doing so. Even if they were, was Trump directly or indirectly involved? Part of this scheme was the “Wisconsin Memo,” which simply put together a slate of electors while the results were being recounted and challenged (not really much of an issue). The “Fraudulent Elector Memo” was a little bit more serious in the sense that the electors may have been selected in swing states for the purpose of having Vice President Mike Pence certify Trump instead of Joe Biden, despite the original electors casting their votes for the latter. However, even from the indictment, it appears that perhaps the “co-conspirators” were attempting to follow state laws in order to enact their plan. It may be difficult to prove that there was foul play. If this is proven, should it not be the “co-conspirators” who are charged and not Trump (unless you can definitively prove that Trump was in contact with them about it the whole time)? And if Trump and his team used the Department of Justice to try pressure states into challenging their results, that could also be criminal and corrupt (this remains to be seen).
As far as I can tell, that is the substance of the indictment. In fact, if my memory serves, roughly half of the document talks about how Trump made “false” statements about the election. However, speech, and even lying or pushing knowingly false claims, is protected by the First Amendment. Regardless of whether Trump thought that the election was stolen or not, how can any of the “false claims” charges even be relevant to the case? You also cannot prove Trump’s intentions and whether or not he knew that the election was rigged or fair. It is like Jack Smith is charging Trump for lying, and if that were not so, why did he have to bring it up every other sentence? In my opinion, those clauses should be thrown out immediately by the court, and the document should be reduced to roughly twenty pages.
For the charges that Trump sent out his minions to disrupt the results of the election, I have covered this topic extensively (and will likely write more as more information is revealed). He did not direct them to trespass in the Capitol (only that they meet him there for a constitutionally-protected protest), the police led the protestors throughout the building (showing that there was likely an entrapment element to this), and he told the protesters to be peaceful and not harm the police (something that even Jack Smith admitted in the indictment). Therefore, in my opinion, there is nothing to charge Trump over for the events on January 6th, but you can read my articles one, two, and three for more details on what transpired that day.
In summary, the indictments against Donald Trump are politically motivated and an attempt to take down the opposition leader to the Democratic Party. You may disagree with my assessment, but consider the timing of all of this. Why is this taking place right before election season, and why does he need to be charged for so many crimes when other politicians often escape prosecution? If this is not a conspiracy between the Democratic Party and the FBI and other elements of our government, perhaps this runs deeper, and the global elites are using the Trump indictments to further divide the country and break up the United States as it descends into civil war. Time will tell. Will we even make it to the 2024 election without internal turmoil tearing our nation apart? This could be avoided by pardoning Trump and allowing for an actual free and fair election to occur, but the “pro-democracy” Democrats will not do this because they want to see their rival rot in prison way too much.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.