It is clear that the law threatens the constitutional existence of government. Democratic judges and elected officials are slamming Donald Trump for questionable legal charges. This blow bodes badly for our future.
It will be a future in which leaders are not chosen by empowered voters. Democratic appointees will vote with the help of friendly jurors in deep blue voting districts. Unlike fastidious Republicans, Democratic judges, juries, and politicians, with few exceptions, strive to advance their party’s interests and demonstrate solidarity with party leaders.
Part of Trump’s problems may be due to his moderation of words, but what happened to him can happen to others in the party.
One of the most promising avenues for election interference for Democrats is what happened to Donald Trump in his two civil lawsuits with feminist journalist E. Jean Carroll. Carroll said Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman fashion store in New York in 1995, then said,
defamed her Years later, when she made the accusations against him. Armed with a huge fortune from Reid Hoffman, a Trump hater and pro-democracy activist, Carroll sued Trump twice over her own grievances. After winning $83.3 million in damages in a second lawsuit, far exceeding Carroll’s demands, Trump’s feisty opponent continued. Her friend Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show Talk about how she spends Trump’s money.
No wonder Mr. Carroll, Mr. Hoffman, and the ideologically committed media continued to pursue Mr. Trump long after the shocking events in question. They’re all intent on derailing Trump’s political career, begging him along the way.
Trump’s legal opponents are trying to force him out of the presidential race and ensure that Democrats retain the presidency. That may have been why a New York jury awarded Carroll more than $80 million in damages after President Trump expressed unfriendly feelings toward his accusers. And yes, I know that the Democratic-appointed judge was reportedly the mentor to Carroll’s lawyer, and Trump’s lawyer Alina Haba was the mentor.
prohibited from speaking in defense of her client. Since the corporate left-wing press fervently supports the anti-Trump side, we do not expect to find these details in the public reports produced by the media.
It’s entirely possible that Trump molested the woman in question 30 years ago, but previous trials have shown that no matter what vile acts the former and perhaps future president commits, it does not amount to rape. It was concluded that. There is also the possibility that the anti-Trump ruling will be heard all the way from the appellate courts to the Supreme Court, where there may not be a final ruling. This process could drag on for years and end without Carol receiving the huge sums she and Rachel Maddow mistakenly imagined they were about to spend.
But what stands out to me most is how similar this case is to how Democrats tried to block Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.It was necessary to bring
Christine Blasey Ford, a less-trusted Democratic #MeToo zealot who accused Kavanaugh of making inappropriate sexual advances in the 1980s. Before that, Democrats again enlisted the help of media owners to go after Clarence Thomas for making lewd comments to Anita Hill. Both of these larks were aimed at mobilizing the Democratic Party’s feminist base against supposedly male-chauvinist Republicans.
As with previous uses of this now-familiar tactic, it may be natural to question the accuser’s account of what happened decades ago. No indisputable evidence is found that Carol was raped. Her claim that President Trump’s disdain led to her professional ruin is even more questionable. Contrary to her claims, she is currently busy writing for fashionable left-wing magazines about her conflict with Donald.
Despite President Trump’s lack of moderation,
when he described carol His accusers profit from her explanation of all these things as being “mentally ill” and “a tough job.”scary men” They have been using her for years. Carol, now a senior citizen of 80 years, won the Miss Indiana University award in the 1960s and likely had many young people following her. But now she sticks to the theme of how men abused her.
Part of Trump’s problems may be due to his moderation of words, but what happened to him can happen to others in the party. The media has already pressed similar accusations against far better-behaved figures, and there is no reason to imagine that Democrats will mess up their strategy once Trump is gone. They’re playing the hardball they’re good at, especially against weaker opponents who have bribed the referees. Needless to say, that horrible Democratic abuser of women, Hunter Biden, will never have to face Gene’s fiery wrath. She works at the behest of Democratic supporters and operatives.
Republicans must learn how to combat this nonsense, starting with a public and unanimous admission that the recently concluded trial against Trump was a judicial outrage. That doesn’t mean defending President Trump’s impulsive response to his accusers. But it does mean recognizing the obvious settings that will likely be organized again and again in the absence of effective counterstrategies.
