• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


The Trump Trial and our Injustice System by Ron Paul

Swordsmyth

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
73,037
The Trump Trial and our Injustice System
by Ron Paul | Jun 3, 2024

I’ve long criticized our current US justice system – on all levels – as becoming much more about political justice than blind justice. The bizarre trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump last week on 34 felonies only reinforces my concerns.

The New York District Attorney, Soros-backed Alvin Bragg, has been notorious for downgrading felony charges against others to misdemeanor charges. According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, Bragg had downgraded 60 percent of felony cases to lesser charges, resulting in violent criminals being released on the streets and a crime wave across New York City.

But when it came to Donald Trump, Bragg lurched in the other direction, upgrading what normally would have been misdemeanor charges against anyone else to 34 felony charges against the former president. How can this sudden “about-face” be explained other than politics?

Jonathan Turley, who is no fan of Donald Trump, has been covering the trial closely and has found more than a little disturbing the exuberant celebrations of Trump’s conviction among the mainstream media and his political opponents. Recently, he wrote:

“The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations [which] extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was ‘majestic day’ and ‘a day to celebrate.’ When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.”

Regardless of one’s view of Donald Trump, it is a disturbing development in our society when justice is treated more like a football game where you root for your “team” rather than a way of preserving our freedom and liberty in an equal way for all.

The real goal of the trial was political. None other than George Soros’ son Alex let the cat out of the bag recently when he advised fellow Trump-haters how to take advantage of the trial result. He posted on Twitter after the verdict, “Democrats should refer to Trump as a convicted felon at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message and we want people to wrestle with the notion of hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in the country!”

It was not about justice in any way. It was all about being able to call the likely Republican presidential nominee a “felon” so as to undermine his support among voters. In other words, election interference.

The market has a way of prevailing, however. The repeated attempts at using “lawfare” to remove Trump from the political scene have all backfired and actually have served to make the former president even more popular among voters. Immediately after Trump’s conviction on the 34 charges he began sending out fundraising appeals based on his “persecution” by the state of New York. As of this writing, he has, according to press reports, raised over $200 million for his campaign.

The politicization of justice is not limited to the Democratic Party. The wind sown by political opponents of Donald Trump may well become the whirlwind they reap when their own political opponents are in positions of power. When that is the case, we all lose.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/the-trump-trial-and-our-injustice-system/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The politicization of justice is not limited to the Democratic Party. The wind sown by political opponents of Donald Trump may well become the whirlwind they reap when their own political opponents are in positions of power.

Maybe.

Or maybe not.

When Republicans have the numbers, they don't have the balls - and when they have the balls, they don't have the numbers.
 
Maybe.

Or maybe not.

When Republicans have the numbers, they don't have the balls - and when they have the balls, they don't have the numbers.

I don't think it is a matter of having the balls. I think they lack the desire. When it comes to Republican politicians, 90% of them don't want the game to change.
 
Maybe.

Or maybe not.

When Republicans have the numbers, they don't have the balls - and when they have the balls, they don't have the numbers.

If only the Republicans could get rid off the Reagen,Bush era/Hawkish Republicans voted off then there might be a chance.
 
Maybe.

Or maybe not.

When Republicans have the numbers, they don't have the balls - and when they have the balls, they don't have the numbers.

I don't think it is a matter of having the balls. I think they lack the desire. When it comes to Republican politicians, 90% of them don't want the game to change.

At risk of repeating myself with boring Myers-Briggs analogies, IMHO, the Republicans as a generalization represent the "Thinking/Reasoning" side, and the Democrats represent the "Feeling/Emotional" side.

The entire concept of unbiased justice, procedure, rule of law, justice is blind, etc comes from the T/R side. Thus, it is hard for the T/R side to do things which are destructive of that system. The F/E side has no such qualms. BAMN, to reach what they feel is the "just" decision at any given moment.
 
At risk of repeating myself with boring Myers-Briggs analogies, IMHO, the Republicans as a generalization represent the "Thinking/Reasoning" side, and the Democrats represent the "Feeling/Emotional" side.

The entire concept of unbiased justice, procedure, rule of law, justice is blind, etc comes from the T/R side. Thus, it is hard for the T/R side to do things which are destructive of that system. The F/E side has no such qualms. BAMN, to reach what they feel is the "just" decision at any given moment.

I think we could further connect some dots in general:

Conservatives = Republicans = Men = Thinking/Reasoning

Liberals = Democrats = Women = Feeling/Emotional

Obviously the there are male Democrats and female Republicans and this is just a generalization, but I do think it is pretty accurate.

As humans, both of these sides are real and legitimate. Both sides have value.

Currently our nation is at serious risk of collapse and in a moment of crisis. Clear headed thinking is needed. Unfortunately the emotional liberals can't even calm themselves enough to ensure their own survival.
 
At risk of repeating myself with boring Myers-Briggs analogies, IMHO, the Republicans as a generalization represent the "Thinking/Reasoning" side, and the Democrats represent the "Feeling/Emotional" side.

The entire concept of unbiased justice, procedure, rule of law, justice is blind, etc comes from the T/R side. Thus, it is hard for the T/R side to do things which are destructive of that system. The F/E side has no such qualms. BAMN, to reach what they feel is the "just" decision at any given moment.

That is a possible explanation for (and confirmation of) why it is the case that, as I put it, "when Republicans have the numbers, they don't have the balls - and when they have the balls, they don't have the numbers".

Unfortunately, that dynamic (combined with the impulse of "conservatives" to increase the scope and power of government in service to their own pet causes) all but ensures the eventual triumph of progressivism in (especially federal) politics. Given the "balls / numbers" factor, reforming or repairing things from the "top down" is pretty much impossible. By its very nature, restraint - regardless of its source or causes - will always be a losing strategy vs. BAMN.

Any viable strategy against such adversaries must involve inveterate rejection, non-compliance, and (in the limit) separation.
 
That is a possible explanation for (and confirmation of) why it is the case that, as I put it, "when Republicans have the numbers, they don't have the balls - and when they have the balls, they don't have the numbers".

Unfortunately, that dynamic (combined with the impulse of "conservatives" to increase the scope and power of government in service to their own pet causes) all but ensures the eventual triumph of progressivism in (especially federal) politics. Given the "balls / numbers" factor, reforming or repairing things from the "top down" is pretty much impossible. By its very nature, restraint - regardless of its source or causes - will always be a losing strategy vs. BAMN.

Any viable strategy against such adversaries must involve inveterate rejection, non-compliance, and (in the limit) separation.

Those are who call themselves “social conservatives”. There are few real conservatives these days. “Social Conservatives” are all for expanding the size and scope of government to cram what they want down everyone’s throats. True conservatives don’t want to use the federal government to cram anything down anyone throats. We got all the hyphenated people calling themselves conservatives when the neocons jumped in the Republican Party to take it over for more war.

The term conservative has been twisted just like what happened to the term, liberal.
 
Back
Top