THIS IS AN AMENDED BLOG. PART OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION WAS ERASED IN ERROR.
I have been finding it extremely difficult to keep up with all of the allegations and indictments against Donald Trump. Quite frankly, in my view, at this point they have become “white noise.” One might ask, which indictments are legitimate, and which are vindictive, merely intended to taint his reputation in advance of the 2024 presidential election?
Polls have shown that the country is deeply divided on this matter. Trump haters tend to believe all the allegations and want him imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole, whereas Trump supporters feel just as strongly that he is a victim of selective or unfair prosecution.
I don’t know for sure (and, in reality, neither does anyone else including the bloviators in the media), but I strongly suspect it is the latter. What I do know for sure is that that pesky little document called the US Constitution holds that Trump, like anyone else who is accused of a crime, is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. His accusers and the media seem to have forgotten or chosen to overlook that fact.
For purposes of this blog I would like to focus on the indictment for Trump’s challenging the results of the 2020 election. A thorough analysis of all the various indictments would require an extremely long blog that few would care to read.
Again, what follows is my opinion. I am merely seeking to add some historical perspective, and demonstrate that Trump’s actions are not unique. In the US’s history there have been many instances of losing candidates challenging the legitimacy of the elections they have lost verbally, in the media and in the courts, and, according to my research, none has been prosecuted. In point of fact, I maintain that such protestations are protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
Below please a few examples.
- 1824 Presidential election – This was a four-way race among Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. Even though Jackson garnered the plurality of both the electoral college and the popular vote, he failed to gain a majority of the electoral college. Thus, according to the Constitution, the House of Representatives was tasked with choosing among the top three – Jackson, Adams and Crawford. As you can imagine there was heavy political intrigue. Clay disliked Jackson and particularly disapproved of his “militaristic” bent. Ultimately, Clay, as Speaker of the House, was able to influence the vote in favor of Adams. In return, following his inauguration Adams rewarded Clay by appointing him as Secretary of State. Jackson raised holy hell. He decried that the election was “stolen” as a result of a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay. He continued to “rail” against the “devils.” Adams and Clay’s actions, though suspicious, could not be proven. Was Jackson indicted for any “false allegations,” any “crimes?” No, of course not. He got his revenge by campaigning vociferously against Adams in 1828 and winning.
- 1876 presidential election – In my opinion, this election “took the cake.” Books have been written about it, and to this day it remains the most disputed and controversial election with far-reaching historical, political, economic and social ramifications. First of all, it was plagued by widespread fraud, violence and voter suppression of Black voters. That was before and during the election. But, the real intrigue occurred afterwards. Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote over Rutherford B. Hayes by some 250,000 votes, 51.5% – 48.5%. However, he only garnered 165 electoral votes. Twenty electoral votes in SC, FL and LA were in dispute which meant that Tilden was one short of the required majority of 166. It was left to Congress to decide the matter. Talk about the proverbial “smoke-filled room!” Most historians agree that ultimately the GOP stole the election by promising the Southern Dems in Congress that if they supported Hayes he would withdraw Federal troops from the South, which would end Reconstruction . This ushered in a return to segregation and Jim Crow laws, whcih, as I said, had inclacuable politcal, historical, economic and social ramifications.
- 2016 presidential election – Most of you are very familiar with this one. Briefly, from the day the election results were in Hillary Clinton began to challenge the legitimacy of the election. She insisted that she, not Trump, was the rightful winner. Moreover, she has continually encouraged many of her supporters in the Dem party and the media to echo her allegations. Her actions cast a pall over the entire Trump presidency. They are still espousing these unfounded allegations to this very day despite the fact that after all this time no evidence has come to light to support them. Has she been indicted or prosecuted? No.
CONCLUSION
I want to make it clear that I am not blindly supporting Trump’s position in this matter. I am merely advocating the application of equality of justice. In this vein I should like to denote that Stacey Abrams has not been indicted or prosecuted for her continued unproven allegations that she was the rightful winner in the last Georgia governor election. The only difference I can see is that she is a Democrat.
The First Amendment guarantees that Trump, or anyone else, is entitled to the presumption of being not guilty until and unless found guilty in court of law. Over the last several years Trump has been accused of various crimes and conspiracies, all of which have been debunked. His supporters view this as one more instance and a thinly veiled attempt to prevent him from winning the 2024 election. Furthermore, they realize that an attack on Trump’s right to free speech is really an attack on everyone’s right to free speech.
We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob 