Sham Indictments Threaten All Americans

"I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it." The above statement, an elegant encapsulation of Voltaire's attitude on freedom of speech, has influenced flourishing democracies for centuries. Indeed, the principle of freedom of expression is held so sacred by our Founding Fathers that it is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

The 45^th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has now been indicted four times in overtly politically motivated prosecutions, each indictment reeking of flimsiness, desperation, and utter shamelessness.

The most frightening common denominator with each of these indictments is that they resemble measures taken in banana republics or brutal totalitarian regimes employing measures to stifle dissent and crush anyone disagreeing with the official party line.

Not satisfied with four cases, Democrats are pushing for a new indictment in Arizona. Americans across the political spectrum should be outraged, and terrified at the very real prospect of legitimizing and normalizing the practice of weaponizing our justice system to hunt down and destroy the lives of political dissidents.

The charges in each and every one of these cases are so bizarre and contrived, one wonders if anyone is really trying to hide the fact that these "investigations" are what the Democrats think is their best and only chance to keep the White House in 2024.

Let's look at each case individually.

In New York, a grand jury indicted Trump on charges involving payment to an adult film star for keeping the details of their relationship confidential. Perhaps only a district attorney like Alvin Bragg would ever deign to bring a case like this forward considering prosecutors looked at this case previously and declined to pursue charges.

Not only are the charges in the New York case weak — having been upgraded from a misdemeanor — but a strong argument can be made that the statute of limitations expired.

Even in deep blue Manhattan, there would be howls of outrage if the taxpayer money was  spent on an investigation like this targeting anyone besides Trump.

The second indictment regarding the retention of classified documents is even sillier than the New York case. If Trump could be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents, then so should Joe Biden and scores of other previous senior administration officials. None of them should be prosecuted under this ridiculous pretense.

Moreover, while there is some debate about whether Trump is protected under the Presidential Records Act, according to a fact check by the American Bar Association,  "in theory, legal guidelines support his [Trump's] contention that a president has broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected."

The third indictment charges Trump under an 1870 Reconstruction era law aimed at protecting the civil rights of African Americans. While this development is sure to revitalize those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, it sets a dangerous precedent.

"Creativity" is a virtue for artists and craftsmen; are we sure we want our prosecutors using their imagination when it comes to devising crimes with which to charge citizens?

In order for special counsel Jack Smith to secure a legally valid conviction in this case, he would have to prove that Trump believed that he had lost the election fairly and that he deliberately questioned the result for fraudulent purposes. Aside from this premise being absurd on its face, it's also impossible to prove.

Another waste of time. Another waste of the taxpayers' money.

It is unjust and unseemly for the federal government of a country whose system of government is looked upon as the gold standard to engage in such blatant political prosecutions.

The fourth and perhaps the most "ambitious" indictment coming out of Georgia is laughable on its face. All we really need to know about the merits of this indictment is betrayed by the fact that Fulton County announced the indictment well before the grand jury actually voted.

Here a Georgia prosecutor seeks to use the state version of RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act traditionally used against murderous crime families, to imprison the former president. Aside from being another massive stretch, it seems the Georgia prosecutor is hoping to spook one or more of the other defendants by the very real prospect of being bankrupted into submission.

Lavrenty Beria, the former director of the Soviet NKVD secret police under Joseph Stalin, was known for his cunning ruthlessness in devising imaginative premises and scenarios as a justification for eliminating anyone who was considered a threat to the regime. Beria might be blushing in admiration were he witnessing the spectacle being carried out by subservient Democrat party apparatchiks.

We should never tolerate attempting to jail people because the regime doesn't like their political views. Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else should condemn politicizing our justice system and hijacking it to pursue political rivals. This is not the United States of America we know, nor should it ever be.

Nicholas Chamberas has advised good government advocacy groups, elected officials and political candidates on public policy matters as well as having served as a senior adviser on several prominent New York City campaigns. He holds a degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctor. Read Nicholas Chamberas' Reports — More Here.