None of the prosecutions of Trump stand up to objective legal analysis. From Donald Jeffries at lewrockwell.com:
Symbolically prosecuting dissent
Readers of my work know how I feel about Donald Trump. I’m part of the smallest minority group in the world- what my friend John Barbour termed the Trump Agnostics. I just can’t get worked up enough over his larger than life personality to either love him or hate him. Obviously, more than 300 million Americans disagree.
Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric was like none we’d heard before in modern American history. He mentioned things that no other candidate ever had, and he did so in a very loud way. Bigly. I voted for him because of immigration. I realized he was not going to do everything he promised, but if he did anything at all to slow down the open borders madness, and deported any appreciable number of illegal immigrants, then that would be a huge win for the American people. It didn’t take long for many of us to realize that Trump wasn’t going to do anything at all to address our disastrous immigration policies. In fact, he wound up deporting fewer illegals that Barack Obama.
Eventually, I postulated that Trump was an actor, hired to play a role. Given populist talking points, that were bound to resonate with millions of Americans tired of the same stale speeches defending a totally corrupt system. I dubbed it the Trumpenstein Project. I don’t think any high profile figures have used my term, although both Matt Gaetz and Steve Bannon have started referring to the Republicans as the Washington Generals. With all due modesty, I think I came up with that one first. Maybe someone on their staffs listen to me on Jeff Rense, or even on my weekly “I Protest” podcast. Or perhaps they just came up with it on their own, independently of me, and my ego is just out of control. But if some of them start using Trumpenstein….
