The saying, “I may not like what you say, but I will die to defend your right to say it,” captures an American ethos that was, until recently, taken for granted. The death of that ethos and its underlying principle, the freedom of speech, is plain to see in the brazen, unprecedented effort to silence Donald Trump by the government of his rival.
Days ago, Trump was slapped with a gag order by Tanya Chutkan, the Washington D.C. judge handling the Biden Justice Department’s “election subversion” case. Although audacious, the gag order is quite predictable. Chutkan and Star Chamber prosecutor Jack Smith have shown contempt for Trump and his rights, and by extension, the common rights of the people, throughout this entire process.
According to Chutkan, Trump’s political campaign “does not give him carte blanche to vilify … public servants who are simply doing their job.” But the freedom to disparage the government is at the very core of American democracy. This nation was founded by men who took up arms against a tyrannical king. So what if Trump calls Jack Smith a deranged thug? Smith has the force of the state on his side. He is not a spectator in this and he is not a victim. Trump is the one facing the loss of his liberty.
Trump has not made any threats. What he has done is relentlessly criticize the credibility of multiple overlapping efforts by prosecutors aligned with the opposing political party to cripple him financially and deprive him of his freedom. (Trump faces 91 charges in all).
It is laughable to contend that an impartial process is at risk of being tainted by Trump, when the process is clearly so politicized to begin with. Over 90 percent of potential jurors in Washington D.C. voted for Trump’s opponent in 2020. Given the very low odds that Trump will receive any kind of impartial hearing, it is imperative that he is permitted to freely voice his grievances in the court of public opinion. Trump’s free speech rights are especially important because of the impending election, in which he is almost certain to face Biden again.
But Chutkan and Smith are determined, with blithe arrogance, to ignore the extraordinary political context of the case. Chutkan accuses Trump, with remarkable irony, of waging a pretrial “smear campaign.” Smith is allowed to call Trump a traitor and an insurrectionist, but Trump is required to stay silent about his tormentor. Likewise, Trump’s lawyers are not permitted to use “political” language in court characterizing this most political of cases as a show trial. What else should they call it?
There is nothing at all ordinary about the prosecution of the leading opposition candidate by the government of his arch political rival, over charges, no less, dealing with a past election contest between the two that continues to divide the nation. (Notwithstanding Smith’s “independence” from Biden, the fact is that he answers to Biden and his Justice Department). It is disingenuous to pretend, as Chutkan has done, that Trump can be treated like just another citizen, although it would be an improvement to being treated like an enemy of the state.
An impartial judge would check an overzealous prosecutor, not rubber stamp his efforts to trample on the accused. But Chutkan has made her feelings about Trump rather clear, through a number of temperamental outbursts in court and her begrudging, perfunctory acknowledgment that he has rights, too. (As of this writing, the judge has magnanimously suspended the gag order while Trump appeals).
In a previous case dealing with the January 6th committee, Chutkan grandiosely said of Trump, “presidents are not kings.” True, but Trump is an American citizen, a former president, and a potential future one. The effort to silence him is an affront not only to Trump and his rights, but to all Americans and the right of the people to select leaders of their choosing.
I think its clear the Ruling Class intends to convict Trump and send him to jail–they will prevent him from being elected president for the third time.
We are not voting ourselves out of this. Regrettably, far too many believe we can, but soon they will find out.
The Indictment against President Trump is a Federal Government frontal attack on the First Amendment. The government is preventing the right of the people, peaceably, to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yet that is exactly what the indictment is all about.
It is Judge Chutkan, as a judge, who has no right to publicly make opinionated comments on this case, even if her opinions about Trump are 100% correct, because opinions by a judge, in or out of the courthouse, may shape the outcome more than the law itself which is fundamental to justice in America. If she were not presiding over the case she could publish a paper, or write an article, because she is entitled to her opinions, just as Donald Trump is, but not in her court where the law presides even over her. Donald Trump not only has the Constitution on his side, as originally ratified, but he also has the First Amendment on his side, which was ratified a year later, so as to double down on the concept of free speech, and especially political speech, directed against the government, so that agents within the government would not be confused over what the Constitution meant about free speech and, thus, not attempt to limit it.
The First Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, does not belong to the government, which includes Judge Chutkan, but to the people, which includes Donald Trump. And that also goes for the rest of the Bill of Rights which belongs to the People and the States. Since Judge Chutkan has made her incomprehension of the US Constitution publicly obvious she should not be on the bench, ruling on any case and, on this particular case, her decisions will be successfully appealed, even by the least Constitutional judges, on the appellate court.
Everything you say is true, accurate and spot on. But regrettably, meaningless.
We are dealing with a lawless, amoral government run by soul-less, sociopathic megalomaniacs who will do anything to keep and grow their power.
We aren’t voting them our of power, or using the power of a superior moral position, a la, the Civil Rights movement of the '60s, or the massive non-violent liberation movement of Gandhi for Indian independence.
In both examples, the oppressors, though brutal and even sadistic, were still human and prayed to the same God. Our oppressors believe they are gods, and they pray–if at all–only to themselves. And they are as inhuman as the Hamas and Hezbollah monsters.
Well, of course that’s correct. Most Americans have never read Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”. I suggest most Americans (which is now about half the people in the country) read it or re-read it. There is a great sorting taking place, but it’s difficult to ascertain whether it is entirely driven by economics or the broader issue of liberty, personal liberty, which wanes with every barbarian who crosses our illusory border.