WHEN WILL WE SEE A TRIAL ?

Finally, an indictment that partially reflects the behaviour of Donald Trump from the moment he lost the general election in 2020. I have repeatedly been of the view that he is guilty of incitement to riot, and was so from the moment Gabriel Sterling made his statement to the press, the state of Georgia, the entire country and to the world. I post the video yet again:

Trump did not stop. The continued and repeated verbal assaults on the constitution, his refusal to accept the truth and his inflaming the passions of his followers led inevitably to the violence of the 6^th January 2021. He did not say go peacefully to protest, he said “You've got to fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore” Those are his words. The consequences were entirely foreseeable. Someone did get shot. For his lawyers to now claim that what he said falls under the banner of freedom of speech, freedom to protest and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is beyond hypocrisy and an invidious interpretation of the very constitution he sought to overthrow and set aside. He continues to do so with every word that comes out of his mouth.

 

On his view there is no behaviour capable of offence. Racist comment is mere opinion and must be covered by free speech. Any lie or libel is permissible as it is protected under the banner of free speech, and so incitement to commit a felony cannot exist as it comes under the protection of free speech. Under his reasoning, anyone who suffered a perceived slight. would have the right to forcibly demand that the government redress their grievance without the necessity of the sanction of a court or legal judgment.

 

Mr Trumps attempts to take the matter for judicial review failed in many courts on numerous occasions. He presented no evidence, not even a shred, save his injured pride. So, in what way does the stoking up of his supporters’ behaviour come under a petition to redress grievance?

 

Quite apart from the first amendment, his supporters feign outrage that the justice department has failed to take action against alleged wrongs by Hilary Clinton and President Biden and his family. How does that relate to the charges against Mr Trump? Is the suggestion that because one burglar gets charged and another does not, no one should be prosecuted for burglary? I do not see the causal connection.

 

Trump’s lawyers are claiming the current indictment criminalises speech. Not at all, when the speech becomes criminal it ceases to be sanctioned by the constitution. If someone tells someone else to commit a crime, is that free speech? How is it open to debate? The rule of law does matter. It is contrary to law to incite people to commit crime. Incitement is not free speech. How often does one have to say it? If someone is told to commit a crime and they do, then the person who told them to commit the crime cannot claim it was just a joke and therefore free speech.  “I was misunderstood” or “I said fight like hell, but I didn’t mean use actual violence” Is that free speech? “Free speech does not give the right to indulge in conspiracy” So says William Barr, Mr Trump’s ex- Attorney General. 

 

Mr Trump is constantly portraying himself as a victim. “Woe is me!!!” is a persistent refrain. He plays on this victimhood of persistent grievances. He seeks support and help from his MAGA crowd and even demands their financial support all the while claiming he is so rich, he is immune from corruption, and they line up for him. Not only do they donate their hard-earned dollars, but they buy the T shirts and the hats. With that, he threatens retribution once President again. He claims the justice department is weaponised against him and then threatens to use the justice department of his possible administration as an even more forceful weapon. Because he is very clear about threats, he assumes others are doing the same. Why else should he remark, in consternation, to his former Vice President “You’re too honest”?

 

What can the members of the Republican party (in the country or in congress) see that is in any way laudable about Mr Trump? Do they not see his psychotic narcissistic behaviour continuously displayed before their eyes on every form of visual media? Do they not hear the inanities, thuggish vocabulary and persistent lies that come out of his mouth? How can they ignore and even defend his wrongdoing and culpability?

 

There appear to be a multitude of voices declaiming the need for the rule of law to be followed. MSNBC, ABC, CBS and many others have voiced opinion on the matter. Again, I ask, why is there a serious danger that Donald Trump could be elected as President of the United States for a second term? 

One might also ask, is there any danger of Boris Johnson making a return?