Via Aaron Mate, we get this horrifying clip where Lawrence O’Donnell discusses with Rachel Maddow how awesome it is that the latest Trump indictment is politically motivated!
Trump-Russia conspiracy theorist @Maddow says "you have to wonder" if the DOJ would drop Trump's case in exchange for him never "running for office again." @Lawrence reminds her that this is exactly what Trump accuses the DOJ of trying to achieve: pic.twitter.com/ivP9pGSCSJ
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) June 9, 2023
Many people supporting this prosecution are saying today that ‘no one is above the law.’
*cough cough Hunter Biden cough cough*
Sorry, folks, this Canukistan forest fire haze is really getting to us. We probably need to get that checked out.
Jokes aside, what she is claiming is that literally Trump would not be facing prosecution if he had announced he was not running for office again—that this is retaliation for Trump’s decision to seek higher office and then floats the idea of the prosecutors making a promise by Trump not to run again a condition for either a lighter sentence or the end of these prosecutions.
It’s perky fascism and it’s infuriating.
Of course, in our system of justice, no one should be above the law … or below it. The First Amendment’s protection for freedom of expression means that the government cannot discriminate against you based on your viewpoints or based on your peaceful political activity. Whether she understands it or not, Maddow is arguing that the prosecutors are violating the First Amendment—and she thinks that’s just great! We know that she wouldn’t if the shoe was on the other foot.
And it’s not a one-time thing for her, either:
This isn't a new idea for Maddow. In February 2019, she floated the possibility that Trump will "offer to trade away his resignation" as President to avoid charges over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels: pic.twitter.com/TAkmApmG8a
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) June 9, 2023
And let’s also notice that in the first clip, Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t say. ‘What are you talking about! They would never indict Trump in part because he dares to run for president!’ Basically, he was only concerned about the optics of it—which is why he thinks Trump’s side would have to offer it first. We half expected to hear him tell Maddow: ‘Rachel, you are saying the quiet part out loud.’
That’s the funny thing about life. Sometimes people on opposite sides of an issue agree on the basic facts, they just come to a different moral conclusion.
Let us give you a historical example of this phenomenon. In 1915, one of the early silent movies had a scene where a white politician told a black man ‘you are the equal of any man here’ in the post-civil-war South. Later in the movie, the same politician ‘delivers his edict that the blacks shall be raised to full equality with the whites.’ You, a modern reader, might think ‘wow, that’s a surprisingly enlightened attitude coming from whoever made this movie.’ Except you’d be wrong. The movie was Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith, easily one of the most racist movies this author has ever heard of, where the Ku Klux Klan are depicted as heroes. This advocate of equal opportunity among the races, Austin Stoneman, is depicted as a villain.
Stoneman is a pretty blatantly fictionalized version of the historical figure Thaddeus Stevens (who is one of our ‘constitutional heroes’). Stoneman is depicted as a physically disabled, hard-core advocate of equality of opportunity between the races, who shared a secret love with his black housekeeper. In 2012—nearly a century later—Spielberg’s Lincoln included a non-fictionalized version of Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones (perfect casting). Spielberg (and Jones) depicted Stevens as … a physically disabled, hard-core advocate of equality of opportunity between the races, who shared a secret love with his black housekeeper. Griffith and Spielberg didn’t actually disagree on many of the facts, but rather how their morality processed them. So, Griffith saw Stevens’ advocacy of equality of opportunity as evil; Spielberg saw it as good. And while historians are not sure Stevens had a romantic relationship with his black housekeeper (both were unmarried), Griffith saw it as a case of a man improperly influenced by his lust, while Spielberg saw it as love that transcended racial barriers and gave fuel to his righteous crusade for equality between the races. They didn’t disagree on the facts very much: They disagreed on how to interpret them, morally.
The same is the case with these two, O’Donnell and Maddow. They agree with many conservatives that say this is a blatantly political prosecution where the current administration is passing judgment on who has the right to challenge the incumbent president. But they think it’s a good thing! Maddow is positively giddy! And they would be as wrong as D.W. Griffith.
Maddow gives the game away. https://t.co/AkyFt50kJC
— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) June 9, 2023
Lol. @maddow says the quiet part out loud. https://t.co/EPw0YXEffq
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) June 9, 2023
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) June 9, 2023
That’s a sarcastic ‘oops.’ The Columbia Bugle is plainly not in favor of such political prosecutions.
That's really the only goal of this, isn't it?
— Aldous Huxley's Ghost™ (@AF632) June 9, 2023
That’s why it’s election interference
— The Hancock (@HancockThe1011) June 9, 2023
MSDNC is the worst copium dealer on the planet.
— TheNarrator (@TheNarrator000) June 9, 2023
It's obvious the only reason this is happening is because their private polling showed Trump would be unbeatable. They don't care they'll unleash something worse that Trump.
— carol leonard (@laughingcat2016) June 9, 2023
We don’t know about such polling, but we will repeat our quote from Instapundit in our piece on reactions to the indictment: ‘Does this mean the Democrats are afraid of [Trump]? Or that they want him to be the nominee and figure an indictment will cement his support?’
terrible precedent for the country…
dangerously naive to believe this will not have far reaching destabilizing political consequences…
pre textual prosecution is the stuff of unstable polities.
— joanskitchen (@sheekooleekoo) June 9, 2023
Pretty much.
Trial balloon
— Dena Fredrickson (@dena30211) June 9, 2023
I'm all for Trump, Pence, Biden, Hillary Clinton, and every scumbag corporatist politician who has mishandled classified data being prosecuted.
But using the threat of criminal prosecution to blackmail a candidate into dropping out is clearly illegal, immoral, and undemocratic. https://t.co/fpMyJnkEQq
— The Progressive Michigander (@Progress_Mich) June 9, 2023
All the Yikes and two more. https://t.co/Bv66pG7jlR
— Dog guy (@Catsorange1) June 9, 2023
Finally:
I can't believe anybody actually watches either one of them.
— Junior Sample (@andalnes1) June 9, 2023
Fair point.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member