War On Trump Gets More Brutal

Democrats have the most bizarre things to say.

Hillary Clinton appeared with lawyer Marc Elias on his Defending Democracy podcast last week. As you may remember, in April 2016, Elias paid for the development of the Steele dossier by infamously hiring opposition research firm Fusion GPS and using his law firm, Perkins Coie, to launder money from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

“Former President Trump is, like, crazy for Vladimir Putin because that guy does what he would like to do: kill, imprison his opposition, push out journalists and others into exile, rule with no checks or balances,” said Clinton in her characteristic provocative manner.

“That is the true desire of Trump,” Clinton went on. Because he only sees strong leaders in that society, we must be extremely aware of how he perceives the world. He sees Kim Jong Un in North Korea; he sees Putin; and he sees [Chinese President] Xi Jinping. He is fashioning himself after such people.

Clinton was just doing what Democrats usually do, which is to accuse their opponents of thinking and acting just like them.

Democrats are learning that it is insufficient to use the law as a weapon against Trump in an attempt to financially drain him while keeping him off the campaign trail. In crucial swing states, Trump continues to outperform President Biden in spite of these extraordinary and drastic steps. Unfortunately, despite their unwavering efforts, their lawfare campaign against Trump is not yielding the results they had hoped for.

The top member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), has moved his focus to unexplored ground: Trump’s personal safety, as Democrats scramble to devise fresh and inventive methods to demolish the former president.

Thompson proposed a measure to revoke the right of convicted criminals to receive protection from the Secret Service, just as Trump’s trial for allegedly paying “hush money” to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election began in Manhattan.

There is presently no Secret Service agent protecting convicted offenders, in case you were wondering. That may all quickly alter, though, if Trump—who is accused of 88 felonies—is found guilty of at least one of them.

The proposed law, known as the “DISGRACED Former Protectees Act,” wants to revoke Secret Service protection for individuals “convicted of a felony that entails a minimum one-year prison term.”

The most memorable aspect of Thompson’s 15-year congressional tenure is that he led the hyperpartisan and dishonest Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Unfortunately, the law as it stands now does not foresee how Secret Service protection would effect a protectee’s felony jail sentence—even a former President,” he said in a public statement on Friday. Although it is unfortunate that we have reached this point, this never-considered situation may actually come to pass.

In an accompanying one-page fact sheet, Thompson states that the legal circumstances surrounding Trump have “created a new urgency that Congress must address to guarantee Secret Service protection does not stop the criminal court process and the administration of justice.”

According to Thompson, he is trying to prevent any potential “complications” between “Secret Service officers and prison authorities at the state and federal levels” in the event that Trump goes to jail.

Thompson’s main worry, according to him, is that Trump may get “special treatment.”

“Thus, it is imperative that we remain ready and revise the legislation to guarantee the American people that protection status does not imply preferential treatment—and that those convicted of crimes will, in fact, complete their designated sentences,” Thompson stated.

The information sheet also discusses whether the measure would be unconstitutional, as well as its “ex post facto” status—criminal legislation that punishes activities retrospectively. However, if we can demonstrate that this measure lacks “an illegal, punitive aim,” we reassure readers that it poses no punitive concerns.

I believe that the bill’s intended punishment is illegal. It seems, in reality, to have a lethal intent. It is just a matter of time until there is an attempt on Trump’s life, given the volume of death threats he receives on a daily basis. But given how fixated Democrats are on Trump’s withdrawal from the contest, maybe that is the intention.

You’ve got to give it to them. They’ve done everything in their power to find the previous president. And now that they have been unable to permanently remove Trump, they have started dancing toward the most forbidden of flames: physical injury.

I have a question for Thompson before we close. If we pass this measure and find Hunter Biden guilty of a felony carrying a minimum sentence of one year in prison, will he also forfeit his protection from the Secret Service?

And a question for the Democrats: When will the party step back and allow the electorate to choose the next president?