Indictment

There's no upside to Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination for president in the 2024 elections, and that makes the events of the past few days complicated.

On the one hand, Trump, if nominated, will likely lose the general election, even though he is running against the most incompetent, ineffective, and inexcusably preposterous administration in my lifetime. As a consequence, the nation will (1) continue on a downward path of economic and domestic decline (e.g., inflation, energy scarcity, crime, illegal immigration, the degradation of major cities); (2) struggle under authoritarian mandates that serve to reinforce leftist narratives, and (3) countenance an incompetent foreign policy that weakens our global position and emboldens our adversaries.

On the other hand, Trump may win (Democrat governance is that toxic) and as a consequence, the nation will again be roiled in a never-ending series of indictments, impeachments, hoaxes, fake news, and media hysteria that will do little to improve the lives of average citizens.

So on a theoretical level, any event that causes Trump to NOT be the GOP nominee is a good thing. But that's theoretical only.

In real life, the manner in which the Democrats, the deep state in general, and the DoJ as its representative have chosen to stop Trump is unprecedented in our history, blatantly partisan, and correctly perceived as a Stalinesque example of "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

It's interesting that the indictments against Donald Trump handed down yesterday have been conveniently timed to smother any news about an alleged case of bribery against Joe Biden (while he was vice president in the Obama administration). Biden has enriched himself and his family over multiple decades, yet the DoJ has slow-walked any investigation into allegations of influence peddling. David Harsanyi comments:

I know, I know, it's getting tedious asking people to imagine the thermonuclear media blast they'd be swept up in if a Republican president had been accused of bribery by an FBI informant. This is the way of the world. To this point, the debate over the proper pronunciation of Ron DeSantis' last name has gotten more coverage than the president possibly pocketing millions of dollars through shell corporations.

Though, I suppose that's not exactly right. Biden's Praetorian Guard have begun to preemptively frame chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, as some devious nut for demanding the FBI hand over documents. This is what they did to Devin Nunes, who turned out to be correct in his assessment of the Russia collusion investigation.

Whatever the case, there isn't a real journalist in the universe -- not a beat reporter or opinion writer or copy editor -- who wouldn't want to read an informant's account of a sitting president taking a bribe. You can debunk it. You can prove it. But you want to see it.

But therein lies the problem. There aren't many journalists left.

True, but there are hundreds of partisan propagandists, who will stop at nothing to protect their chosen party, regardless of the situation.

So for everyone one who sanctimoniously proclaims that "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW," thereby justifying this politically-motivated indictment of a former president, I would suggest applying the same sentiment to allegations against Biden and ask:

Why has the DoJ investigated Trump, called grand juries in two locations, leaked investigative details to a ravenous media who gladly suggest that Trump is guilty of espionage, built a case against him, and handed down indictments in 11 months total? Yet the same DoJ refused to apply the same zeal to investigate a bona fide allegation of bribery again a now-sitting president. Why after at least 24 months has nothing happened? In fact, why does the DoJ refuse to even provide details of the allegation contained in a public document?

You know why, and so does any observer who has a few more functioning brain cells than the current President of the United States.

UPDATE (6/12/2023):

Eli Lake summarizes nicely when he writes:

The former president's actions were craven, reckless and stupid. So is the decision to prosecute him for violating the 1917 Espionage Act.

If the federal indictment is to be believed (and the actions of the DoJ over the past few years makes that a very BIG "if"), Lake notes:

Reading through the indictment of Donald Trump, one is tempted to ask if the man wanted to be caught. It reads like a bad comic novel.

The former president is the bumbling protagonist, scheming with an underling to hide boxes of documents from the FBI and his lawyers. Trump boasts to a writer and publisher that he is showing them a classified document—on a tape in which he consented to being recorded.

Trump is often "craven, reckless and stupid," but that does not justify the DoJ (and the FBI, intelligence agencies, etc) promoting a Russia hoax that lead to a special prosecutor (who came up empty) or the Democrats impeaching Trump twice on largely baseless charges (that failed in trial), or a local DA who was elected on the promise he'd indict Trump, or a propaganda media (an aggressive arm of the Democrat party that reported false and misleading information for four years). 

The "craven, reckless and stupid" actions of each of these entities from 2016 to the present day have gravely damaged their credibility. They are viewed by many as partisan and dishonest, making their claims that "no one is above the law" absolutely laughable.