By Patrick F. Cannon
I was going to do a (hopefully) amusing piece this week, but you’ll have to wait until next week to have a hearty guffaw. Instead, I’m afraid Donald Trump once again rears his hairy head.
Regular readers will know how much I loathe Trump, so will be surprised when I say that the civil judgement against him in New York for exaggerating the value of his assets in applying for loans was more than a little politically motivated. Technically, of course, he no doubt broke some law or other, just as many others have who have not been prosecuted. After all, is it not the bank’s responsibility to determine whether to grant the loan? Since the loan was repaid with interest and on time, they seemed satisfied with the result, and no doubt considered and discounted Trump’s inflated valuations. Do you wonder why they weren’t asked to testify by the prosecution?
If New York Attorney General Leticia James were to prosecute every similar case, she would have to double her staff. But she won’t; nor will Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who seems determined to double down with the hush-money, Stormy Daniels criminal case. While Bragg’s case is stronger, it will also give Trump an opportunity to campaign without having to bother to do anything but stand outside courtrooms and play the martyr. And even if the loan fraud judgement survives appeal, don’t be surprised if the monetary award is drastically reduced.
Then we have the fiasco in Georgia, where the actual case against Trump is also strong, but where District Attorney Fanni Willis has jeopardized it by having an affair with the outside prosecutor she hired to the tune of $650,000, and with whom she took expensive trips he paid for, claiming that she reimbursed him for her share in cash. Really?
It seems less and less likely that Trump will be convicted of anything before the election. Even if he is, the inevitable appeals will drag on, perhaps for years. In the end, the voters will have to decide if they want him to serve a second term. For many Republicans and conservatives, it comes down to a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. In this case, the devil is someone they know, Trump, and the deep blue sea is a man that represents a political party that they believe over governs and overspends.
On Tuesday, November 5, you and I will likely be faced with that baleful choice. Do we vote for a thoroughly bad man, whose only saving grace is he isn’t a Democrat; or a man already showing his age, and who may or may not live through a second term, and who’s likely vice-presidential candidate is widely disliked? Or not vote at all, which may be a popular choice?
It’s a hell of a thing, isn’t it?
Copyright 2024, Patrick F. Cannon
cannonnadedotcom 
Thank you for continuing the 7 year witch hunt against Trump. I
LikeLike
Yes, we voters will have to decide. At least, we should.
The government’s proper role is to adjudicate disputes and wrongs among private individuals and groups. Under Biden/Obama, the government through politically appointed judges now have taken it upon themselves to litigate for the purposes of remaining in control. ”Our Democracy” cannot be subjected to opposition.
The Letitia James case was a setup from the get-go. Not only did she campaign on a pledge to nail Trump, but the alleged offense occurred many years ago and was all but forgotten. A hostile judge was selected to rule against him. There would be no jury. The unprecedented punishment, half of a billion dollars to paid to the government in cash up front, far exceeded the cruel and unusual. I’m amazed it’s taken people so long to realize what a farce this is.
An assumption among journalists and others — envious of the money of someone far less educated than they — seems to be, he is a rich man, he must be guilty of something. No wonder most billionaires prefer to keep a low profile. Trump, in contrast, likes to strut on stage. It drives those people mad.
The leftist press has been quick to defend blatant irregularities such as the 2020 election. ”Where is the evidence?” they taunt. With Trump, however, it’s, “Evidence? We don’t need no stinking evidence!” Orange man bad.
Another court in NYC ordered Trump to pay millions in damages to a clever, nut-case woman who accused him of a rape that supposedly happened decades ago (the statute of limitations had been waived). Even though she had no proof, couldn’t remember details and had previously made similar false accusations against others, a jury agreed with her. Soon he will be tried on charges of insurrection, election interference (!), mishandling of classified documents and a variety of other alleged offenses. Somehow, he is still standing.
The Biden/Obama regime has illegally allowed millions of undocumented foreigners to enter the country. Some 30,000 have come from China, others from Muslim countries. Reports say there may be subversives and terrorists among them. We know that more than a few have criminal backgrounds. I have a very bad feeling, which I hope never comes to pass, that as the Democrats’ prospects of re-election fade, one of them may attempt an assassination. It would be an entirely self-motivated act of a deranged individual, mind you. There will be no evidence.
LikeLike
I’m reaching the point when I’m inclined to treat it all as a dark comedy. If you live long enough, you’re certainly guilty of something. If you lay low, you can often get away with it. Trump chose to yell from the rooftops. Once again, the devil or the deep blue sea.
LikeLike
It’a all theater, until the actors come after you with hammer and tongs.
LikeLike