082218 Equal protection again

082218 Equal protection again

So the latest avenue used by the Left to attack Trump is to say that when an attorney makes payments which benefit a candidate, that attorney gets prosecuted for making an excessive campaign contribution.

Well, okay, there’s certainly a good possibility that such an argument could be plausible, that candidates would use their attorneys to conduct transactions while shielding the candidate from exposure.  So we’ve got no problem with law enforcement applying that argument equally to everyone.

Let’s see, can anyone think of a law firm who made payments on behalf of a candidate in the 2016 Presidential campaign?  Okay, yeah, we’ll spot you the first one – Cohen on behalf of Trump.  Now, were there any other candidates in the 2016 Presidential campaign?  Can you think of any law firm who made payments on behalf of the Clinton campaign?

Have those lawyers been charged with making excessive campaign contributions?

Is that equal protection?

With all my effort to point out the dozens (hundreds?) of instances of government agencies denying equal protection of the law to Mr. Trump, I should point out an important distinction.

Their denial of equal protection does not automatically mean that Trump is innocent.  For example, one breach of duty I’m quite adamant about Trump committing – and about which I have written extensively – is the failure to stop the Mueller investigation.  If he does not stop this investigation, then I believe he will have violated his Constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

It does not matter to me that I supported him and believe he has done some terrific things with policy in several areas.  He wanted the job, he sought the job, now he must do the job.  And a key part of the job is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  Do that part of the job, too, Mr. Trump, or you will have to be removed for breach of duty.

Back to the former point that their denial of equal protection does not automatically mean that Trump is innocent.  It just means that the investigation and prosecution are tainted because they are not faithfully executing the law.  And, therefore, such behavior creates the presumption that the target is probably innocent.  After all, if they could nail him by legitimate means, they would.

But that would also mean serious jail time for Clinton and most of her team, as well as for most of the Obama administration, through the application of equal protection of the law.  So they violate their duty and pursue only Trump, because they don’t want to hold the Clinton-Obama machine accountable.

That’s the significance of pointing out the denial of equal protection.  It suggests, but doesn’t guarantee, that Trump is innocent.  And it destroys the credibility of the investigators and prosecutors.  Which erodes our trust in these institutions.

We need to hold everyone accountable.  I believe an impeachment trial is the best venue for holding everyone accountable.  Trump will be able to call witnesses and present evidence to hold the investigators and prosecutors accountable for their conduct, and clear his name.  They will likewise be able to present evidence – if they have any – to prove their accusations against him.  And we the governed will see it all and be able to hold everyone accountable at the ballot box.  So bring it on!


ERpundit  –  08/22/18

Comments are closed.