Trump’s appeal stated that while jury selection begins next week, "polling and quantitative analysis of media coverage shows that a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected right now based on prejudicial pretrial publicity." Gonzalez was unmoved, writing, "Defendant’s application for a stay of trial…pending the determination of defendant’s motion for change of venue, is denied."
Can you imagine any other person in America, let alone a former president and current candidate polling ahead of Biden, receiving such treatment? The no explanation, one-sentence order, lends itself to the argument that at least half the country maintains; Democrats want to disappear Trump - and that they’re next to be silenced and or jailed. To Democrat politicians and unelected bureaucrats, he merits no explanation and no more than one sentence. This might be received by a minimum of 74 million voters as if they, too, are worth no explanation and no more than a one sentence write-off.
It’s a dangerous gambit. Democrat lawfare against Trump is helping, not hurting him in the polls and with public opinion. He is gaining support across the board, from blacks, Hispanics, young people (despite Biden’s clawing desperation to bribe them by canceling student loans) and, women, specifically moms. The Democrats know this, which is why their appetite to bankrupt, imprison, and even kill him is insatiable.
It’s not just celebrity Democrat donors fantasizing publicly about Trump’s death, like Kathy Griffin displaying a mock severed head of Trump. Or Madonna saying, “I have thought, an awful lot, about blowing up the White House.'' Or Johnny Depp asking aloud, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” Mainstream media pundits and politicians frequently flirt with violence towards him and his supporters. Donny Deutsch posited that “people need to start taking to the streets.” Democrat Representative and Squad member Ayanna Pressley stated, “There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”
Then there’s Letitia James, who campaigned on targeting Trump. In a press conference, she described him as “the man currently occupying the Oval Office.” Her use of “occupying” is interesting. Trump is not some invader; he was voted into office. To call him an "occupier" was a clear foreshadowing of things to come. James went on to say, “We know here in New York, a man…who gets rich off the backs of others…stands as a front (sic) to all I believe in…and someone we must keep in check by the long arm of the law.”
Trump will get a fair trial in New York City? Yeah, sure. Arguing against Trump’s appeal on Monday, prosecutor Steven Wu said, “This is not the type of coverage that is prejudicial… The mere fact that jurors know about this case is not an indication of bias. The fact that they voted against [the] defendant is not an indication of bias. He has himself been responsible for stoking that publicity.” Reread that, if you have to. I guarantee it won't make any more sense.
And speaking of things that don't make sense, legal scholars have opined that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against President Trump is weak because of two reasons. First, it seeks to turn an alleged payment for sexual interaction into a violation of federal campaign laws. Second, the alleged payment depends on the testimony of liars and morally loose individuals. There’s convicted perjurer Michael Cohen, whose guilty plea was crafted by one Lanny Davis, a sometime consigliere for Hilary Clinton. Then there’s the likely testimony of porn star and stripper, Stormy Daniels. Daniels has been ordered to pay Trump $620,000; $120,000 in legal fees to Trump’s team on top of $500,000 in court-ordered payments to his attorneys she’s already been ordered to pay - and hasn’t satisfied.
The fact that the government allows the proliferation of cases featuring prosecutors and judges who are either compromised or blatantly biased (see: Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Letitia James, and Arthur Engoron) is stark. No one trained in logic or reasoning would consider these cases to be serious, and yet, the Bragg/Merchan case ploughs forward with no concern as to appearance of bias, distortion of legal theory, and calumny of witnesses, plus an all around aura of toxicity. This signifies that the government isn’t serious about convicting a “criminal” (Bragg lets real criminals go free every day). No, their interest is in draining Trump of money, keeping him tied up in court rather than on the hustings, and exhausting him. Reasonable people would, already, have denounced this as election interference.
The perverse result is breathtaking. Prior to this lawfare, by federal, state, and local governments, Trump was running largely on one issue; that the 2020 election was stolen. Now, he is running on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, due process, and the rule of law. A great many people have been sickened by the weaponization of selective lawfare. Moreover, the government has successfully censored Trump from most of the media platforms in the country. Now, they opened the legal forums for him to campaign. The press must report. Which is the ultimate irony: despite trying to shut Trump up, it is these very prosecutors who have turned Trump from “Bad Orange Dorito Man” into the most heavily favored underdog in living memory.
