Posted by Jack
Donald Trump’s Biggest Crime Was Winning The 2016 Election
by Saritha Prabhu
Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published and do not necessarily represent the views of Enterprise Record or Post Scripts, but in my case I completely agree! Jack
Donald Trump’s biggest crime was winning the 2016 election. For our political and media elite in the Beltway, that was the catastrophic, unforgivable crime, from which all the other (imaginary) crimes they now pursue him for originated.
How dare he win that election? Didn’t he know the election belonged to Hillary Clinton, who’d been building up to this very moment for three decades, courting every relevant constituency, remembering every useful politician’s birthday, and being as banal as possible to check everyone’s “lesser political evil” box?
How dare he win the election on his very first try? If you scratch the surface, jealousy is one of the driving emotions among Washington’s elite against Trump and his electoral success. He achieved what many career politicians would die and sell their souls multiple times for. And Trump did it seemingly casually, almost effortlessly. How dare he? He must have stolen the election!
How dare he win that election with a shoestring budget and a ramshackle campaign apparatus? How dare he win without an army of consultants, strategists, advisers, pollsters, and fancy data interpreters? Didn’t he understand that our elections are an excellent jobs program for thousands of political operatives and media types?
How dare he win the old-fashioned way: you know, by having a simple, direct message; recognizing heartland voters’ economic woes; and campaigning in that retail-politics way of his? Didn’t he know that 21st-century elections are now won with Big Data, microtargeting of voters, and media-hyped candidates?
Want to read more? Then click here.
New t-shirt available . . . . . .
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/06/must-have-limited-edition-tee-spoofs-the-biden-2020-campaign-logo-with-a-hilarious-twist/
The Mueller report documents ten instances that could arise to obstruction of justice. Mueller points out that he did not make a decision on whether or not those instances were prosecutable because of the DOJ guidelines that say a sitting president cannot be indicted. No one here wants to discuss those potential crimes, or anything else in the report, because deflecting to “He won” and “But Hillary” is more emotionally satisfying. This is not even getting into his shady tax avoidance scams, his charity being disbanded because of fraud, Trump University, the problems with the Stormy Daniels payments, emoluments…the list of potential crimes is long. But he’ll keep getting away with it as long as he has the support of 30% of the country.
Chris, I personally don’t know, but according to one very reliable source a sitting president can be indicted. This is according to a 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act. The memo amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties.”
It’s also not 30% of the country, its more like 46% of the country (97% of GOP voters) according to the latest Gallup polling data. “Trump hits highest approval rating of his presidency in Gallup poll at 46 per cent in wake of Mueller report and strong jobs numbers. In March the pollsters had him at 39 per cent approval. The spike in approval comes after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report and among positive economic news”. The Daily Mail said, “report found no collusion between the Trump camp and Russia and the U.S. GDP increased by 3.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2019.”
I’m aware of that memo. It doesn’t change the DOJ guidelines at all. It’s from the office of Ken Starr, and was written by a conservative legal scholar during the Clinton impeachment.
I looked up Ken Starr’s current comments expecting to see a change in his tune, but was pleasantly surprised that he’s stayed consistent in his view that presidents should be indictable.
Of course the DOJ guidelines aren’t the Constitution. But Mueller is very by-the-book and conservative (in both the political sense and the sense that he is careful and considerate of precedent), and that was a fight he was never going to pick. He’s instead left it up to Congress and the public when it comes to how to hold Trump accountable for the long list of lies and bad acts compiled in the report, many of which have been publicly known for a long time.
The 30% number wasn’t meant as a current estimate, just an estimate of the lowest his approval can get without him needing to get particularly worried. 46% is high for him, but it’s unusual for a president to never once get over 50% approval. I hope more Americans turn out to the polls in the next election since he still does not have the support of most of the country. Provided he is not impeached and removed, he will be sharing a debate stage with politicians that, while flawed, at least resemble relatively normal human beings. My hope is that this is going to be more of a hurdle for him than it was in 2016, and that at least a large share of those who found his lack of normalcy exciting then find it exhausting (as you do) now.