In the realm of political adversaries, there exists a unique twist of fortune where their goals align. Donald Trump and the Democrats may have vastly different aspirations in the long run – Trump yearns for a return to the White House while Democrats envision him in an orange jumpsuit. However, in the short term, their desires converge – both parties seek Trump as the Republican nominee, either for his triumphant comeback (according to Trump) or for him to face the consequences of his actions (according to Democrats). Surprisingly, the series of indictments against Trump, although not their primary purpose, serve this mutual interest. Each indictment thrusts Trump into the spotlight, dominating media attention and rallying Republicans to his side by creating an image of selective prosecution.
Initially, the first indictment of a former president possessed some novelty, but it has now become commonplace, akin to a pork chop on a stick at the well-known Iowa State Fair. Skeptics argue against the idea that Trump’s prosecutors are secretly MAGA agents, claiming that Trump’s legal vulnerabilities are simply catching up with him. Theorizing about underhanded political motivations becomes unnecessary. Columnist Rich Lowry asserts that Democrats merely want Trump to face the consequences.
Undoubtedly, Trump faces substantial risk in the ongoing documents case. However, the recent Alvin Bragg indictment appears flimsy, and we remain uncertain about the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith and District Attorney Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia. Let us consider a thought experiment: if the Justice Department and other prosecutors knew that these indictments guaranteed a nomination for Ron DeSantis or Tim Scott, would they proceed? If they believed that these indictments would strengthen Trump’s position against Joe Biden in the general election, would they still pull the trigger? Or would they exercise some form of restraint, a course of action that holds its merits from the beginning? Understanding Republican politics is not necessary to comprehend the situation at hand. The vehemently pro-Trump response from the GOP following the search at Mar-a-Lago clearly indicated the potential for targeting Trump to work in his favor.
If any doubts lingered, Trump’s surge in the polls after the Bragg indictment should have dispelled them. Yet, Trump’s prosecutors persist. For Trump, the Leninist logic of “the worse, the better” applies – the more indictments with weaker cases, the more Republicans perceive him as a victim of a politicized justice system. On the other hand, Trump’s adversaries prioritize quantity over quality, banking on increased chances of trials and guilty verdicts before the November 2024 election. Although these indictments may boost Trump’s standing in the primaries, they can potentially harm him in the general election. Inevitably, trials and guilty verdicts would inflict further damage. Trump’s domination of media attention and his ability to rally Republicans based on charges of selective prosecution represent some of his most valuable political assets, as highlighted by Lowry.
Ironically, Trump and his enemies share a common objective, despite their mutual disdain – a high-stakes, hate-filled rematch between Trump and Biden, reminiscent of a Third World scenario, with the added possibility of imprisonment for one contender and intense prosecutorial scrutiny for the other. Everything thus far indicates that they are on course to achieve this outcome.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
