President Trump is the victim of the biggest hate crime in American political history.
It has been evident from day one that regressives hate the president. They hated him when he declared, they hated him when he ran, they hated him when he won, and they have hated him every day since.
Here is Merriam-Webster’s definition of a “hate crime:” “Any of various crimes...when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group...”
In order to have a “hate crime,” there first must be hostility toward the victim. Regressives hate Trump with a visceral, intense, bottomless, mindless hatred, so condition one is abundantly satisfied. It is easy to identify the definition’s “group” he’s a part of here, political conservatives.
The more progress Trump makes in implementing his conservative agenda - nominating constitutionalist judges, protecting life in the womb, protecting religious liberty, securing our southern border - the more the intensity of their hatred grows. They hate him for his outsized, grandiose personality, which may be unappealing to some but is hardly impeachable.
To satisfy the definition of “hate crime,” the second thing we must have is a crime of which he is the victim. It turns that “malicious prosecution” is just such a crime. Jussie Smollett is charging Chicago with this very crime for his perceived mistreatment when he was arrested for pretending to get beat up. Here is the legal definition of “malicious prosecution:” “the tort of initiating a criminal prosecution or civil suit against another party with malice and without probable cause.”
Some may not think impeachment is a prosecution, but I’m betting the president would beg to differ with you. Articles of impeachment are the functional equivalent of an indictment, and charges are drawn for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The Constitution even calls it a “trial” when it reaches the Senate. There is a jury, charges are pressed, witnesses are sworn in, the jury votes, and a verdict is rendered. So an impeachment trial meets the definition of a prosecution in every meaningful sense.
So we have a victim, we have malice in massive proportions, and we have a prosecution. The one element missing for a malicious prosecution charge: it must be carried out “without probable cause.”
The Democrats are flailing around every day to identify some offense on Trump’s part to justify what they are putting the president and the public through. That’s why the charge against him changes by the day and even by the hour. We have already cycled through obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, quid pro quo, and finally - after focus groups to identify the nastiest sounding charge - bribery. Then, whoops, after Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony, we are now right back to quid pro quo.
But witness after witness has undercut their narrative. On Monday, two significant government witnesses (the former ambassador to Ukraine and a high ranking member of the National Security Council) directly denied ever being asked to extort or bribe anybody anywhere at any time. Even Sondland testified again on Tuesday that the president told him emphatically, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing." Some who listened in on the July 25 call have said it was “unusual” or “inappropriate.” But no one has identified a crime the president committed on that call.
Everybody knows that Trump did not get what he was accused of demanding in exchange for military aid. He not only got no investigation into Burisma, he didn’t even get an announcement about one. Yet Ukraine got every dime of the promised $391 million without having to make a single concession. If this is how Trump plays quid pro quo, he’s no quid pro quo pro.
So all the conditions are satisfied. We have a victim, the 45th president of the United States. We have immeasurable malice and hatred directed at him. We have a prosecution. And we have zero - as in nada, zip, zilch - probable cause.
From Jump Street, this whole thing has been an impeachment in search of a crime. It’s never been about the Constitution; it’s always been about a coup d’etat. They know they cannot defeat at him at the ballot box in 2020 so they’re trying to defeat him by cheating. They must not be allowed to get away with this, to turn the supreme law of the land into a cheap political tool to take vengeance on somebody they just don’t like. They must be stopped.
The author may be contacted at email@example.com