ANY fair minded, objective juror would agree that Donald Trump was never guilty of the high crime for which he was so improperly charged.
Having achieved more than any other president, at least since Ronald Reagan, there is a widespread hope in the hearts of millions that for the sake of America and of the free world, his best political days are indeed yet to come.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the media pack view that his behaviour after the election was in any way reprehensible.
Not only was he entitled to his strong reservations about the integrity of the election, from his solemn oath, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, he was under a duty to advance the lawful correction of electoral fraud, including inviting Mike Pence to be, as the constitution intends, more than just a mere rubber stamp for fraud.
The media pack insistence that Trump’s fraud allegations are entirely baseless and without evidence, along with their curious refusal to investigate these, lends support to the conclusion they are doing no more than the bidding of the anti-Trump cabal of powerful people, who have so conveniently bragged about themselves to Time magazine.
And why are not Australian commentators especially outraged that the cabal’s sinister agenda included dismantling what was in fact our gift to the world, that great protection against fraud, the secret or “Australian” ballot.
This has been increasingly replaced by “mail-in” ballots to every name on an often outdated roll, together with significantly reduced safeguards, at times achieved unconstitutionally, as alleged by Texas and 17 States, which a Supreme Court majority declined to hear on a technicality.
Evidence has emerged that the Capitol riot was planned well before Trump’s speech had even begun…
As to the current impeachment lust which began within minutes of Trump’s inauguration, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton says its true purpose is “to chill and criminalise (any) speech” in opposition to the elites’ agenda. Increasingly, anyone daring to speak against this risks being “de-platformed”, dismissed or as we have seen, losing preselection.
As this column has argued, the Pelosi snap impeachment was even worse than Stalin’s show trials where at least there was a pretence of due process. Dispensing with evidence, due process and fairness on the grounds that Trump was so dangerous he had to be removed, once obtained, Pelosi sat on it until the trial could only take place when President Trump was no longer in office. Was this to ensure some placeman, rather than the constitutionally mandated Chief Justice, would preside?
As to the unconstitutional charade of a trial in the Senate, Trump’s legal team delivered such gems as “You get more due process fighting a parking ticket than in this charade” and “You can’t incite what was going to happen”.
Meanwhile, had the prosecution managers been practising in a real court, they risked being struck off. Even the placeman trial president Leahy (he voted for a conviction) was forced to order the removal of new evidence they improperly tried to slip into their summing up.
One of their outrages was to doctor a tape removing Trump’s call for the march to be patriotic and peaceful. On this, my letter to an Australian newspaper pointing out they had somehow missed this in their report was not published. But a star commentator then referred to this, dismissing it as a “transparent Trump self-protection clause”.
Then, with evidence emerging the invasion was planned well before Trump’s speech and begun well before he ended, the prosecution abandoned any attempt to show Trump’s speech incited the demonstration under the Supreme Court’s Brandenberg test. This requires a prosecution to show the words were “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”, “likely to incite or produce such action” and did so.
Instead. they spent their time “proving” what everyone accepted, that the invasion was appalling. Obviously, it would have been the last thing Trump would have wanted. His wish was to have the Congress hear challenges to the fraudulent election of Democrat members of the Electoral College. An invasion would have stopped, weakened or delayed this, as it did.
They made the mistake of using most of their allotted time by repetitively concentrating on the invasion and on speeches to showcase individual managers. The more professional and ethical Trump defence team took far less time and was more substantial.
This charade achieved nothing but vicious anti-Trump news reports. Apart from the lack of due process, its unconstitutionality, the failure to even attempt to prove the case according to the Brandenburg test, the most appalling aspect was their decision to deny Donald Trump both his right to due process and freedom of speech. If they would do this to a former president what would they do to the rank and file?
The greatest condemnation of the elite establishment was the Trump legal team’s compelling answer to the fatuous claim that Donald Trump caused the invasion of the Capitol.
The true reason was more likely to have been the result of the long summer of insurrection in 2020 in Democratic administered cities across the land. This involved burning, torching and looting by what had become the paramilitary arm of the Democratic party, Black Lives Matter and Antifa. These eight months attracted from Democrat leaders, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, at best a failure to tell them to stand down or at worst, active support in campaigning for bail and encouraging even more outrages.
After eight months of this, it was the Democratic leadership who created an increasing view at least among radicals (not typical Trump supporters) that violent demonstrations were now the American norm.
Biden and especially Harris were far more to blame (and far more impeachable perhaps after the mid-term) for the Capitol invasion. Harris especially may well be an accessory after the fact to many of the crimes of that long summer.
The chickens have at last come home to roost.DF