None the less, whether something like justice prevails in such cases or not, the task before us is to *end* lawfare, not to turn it on the Democrats in a never ending round of tit for tat reprisals*. Somehow, the Rule of Law in this country must be restored, and all of the Democrats’ abuses — including, as Max points out, flagrantly ignoring the courts — must be addressed if only by way of identifying bad examples. If the Trump “show trials” do not constitute a teachable moment for most open-minded Americans**, then such a thing does not exist and any expectation of progress is a chimera. At the very least, we need to come away from this debacle with a resolute mindset of “never again” with respect to such legal abuses and a thorough understanding of why they are so deadly to our form of self government.

Again, for the sake of our Republic, lawfare must be ended. Period.

*Consider how well this is working out in the Middle East and in Gaza.

**As is now being widely observed, Mr. Trump’s legal troubles are resonating with those Americans who have historically been on the receiving end of earlier forms of socially condoned lawfare, from broken treaties and forced assimilation to the grinding, spirit killing depredations of Jim Crow segregation. At this point in our history, can we finally say that the Constitution really *means* what it says, that Dr. King’s dream is at last real, and its protections (and strictures) apply equally to *all* of us?

When? Where? And by whom? Are the SCOTUS justices going to order them locked up and prosecuted?

Since we now have a “legal system” rather than a justice system with the collectivists in charge of it, there’s a ripe dead certainty that they will never be appropriately punished, or punished at all, for their criminal actions.

Biden Campaign Blasts Trump After Historic Felony Conviction: ‘No One Is Above The Law’

Except the Democrats.
Those who make the law, are not ruled by the law because they’ll just change it again to fit themselves and the circumstances.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/16/biden-moves-to-block-house-from-getting-his-classified-docs-interview-tapes-00158323
The court has already ruled that is not legal for him to forgive school debt. He just gave them the middle finger.

Had Trump been found innocent, I have no doubt they would’ve tried him again just to destroy the constitutions double Jeopardy rule… After all that’s the point of all this is to destroy our system of laws.

Even so, I know they are attacking the two most conservative Justices (Alito and Thomas) to find anyway to remove them from the process. That way they have a better chance with the softer members when the Trump cases arrive.

If anything, short term, this tells us more about the coming decision for Murthy v Missouri. This was argued the same day as the case above, and involved similar circumstances, namely, a federal agency pressuring a private company to suppress the 1st Amendment.

In my mind, it should be the slam dunk like the NRA case. However, three things come to mind.
1. KJB stated during arguments in Murthy v Missouri : “Your view has the first amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods…” implying the 1st amendment should not get in the government’s way of controlling the message if circumstances are dire.
2. In the NRA ruling KJB (again) stated : the facts of a case matter in deciding if the 1st Amendment It is only once a court determines that coercion occurs, she contended, that it must then “assess how that coercion actually violates a speaker’s First Amendment rights.” Doing so, she continued, may require the court to apply different doctrines depending on the facts of the case..”
(quoted from Amy Howe’s SCOTUSBlog editorial).
3. From the same article, Gorsuch wrote: The key question, he stressed, is whether a plaintiff “has ‘plausibly alleged conduct that, viewed in context, could reasonably be understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff’s speech.” – So if the Court then decides in Murthy v Missouri that the government pressure on social media companies had no threat of adverse action, then by all means, the federal agency has that ability to pressure them to silence their users.

I just hope this kind of lunacy does not sway the weaker members of the Court. Or worse, that they even suggest that the dire circumstance of the “pandemic” would be a justifiable reason to impair the peoples’ civil rights.

I fear that decision will actually be razor thin.

All potentials exist.

Good soldiers all.

Doing what must be done for the cause, for the movement.

By any means necessary.