The sham trial in the so-called “hush money” case against Donald Trump really has Democrats excited. This probably isn’t the best analogy, but it works: they seem to think THIS will finally be the thing that takes down Trump, like everyone in a Halloween movie thinks whatever blow they land will be what stops Michael Meyers. They’re all always wrong. In the movies they’re wrong because there’s money to be made in a sequel, with Trump they’re always wrong because they simply cannot understand the basics about the man and his supporters.
Democrats genuinely seem to think they can somehow turn Trump’s supporters against him somehow. They’ve tried everything, and they keep trying. Nothing works.
They’ve called the former President corrupt, despite the fact that he’s quite possibly, thanks to the intervention of the left, the only person in the last at least 50 years to be poorer when they left the White House than when they entered it. They’ve called him a tool of foreign powers, despite the fact that he held those foreign powers in check, denying them what they wanted and hitting them with tariffs when they tried anything not in our interests. They called him a “threat to democracy,” as they scramble to make up laws to charge him with and fight to keep him off various state ballots.
Democrats either have no sense of irony or no sense of self-awareness.
With all these Lawfare actions, Democrats are hoping for one simple thing: something that sticks.
With E. Jean Carroll case they thought they had it – they got a huge civil judgement against him. People didn’t care. The idea of an assault happening so long ago the “victim” can’t even remember the year, she jokes about rape with Anderson Cooper, but was so mortified when Trump called her a couple of names (which there’s no way on Earth she hasn’t been called a thousand times before) is beyond stupid. Like I said, no one cared and no one should.
With the scam case involving “lying” on loan applications, no one cares about that either. I saw this on Twitter the other day from a bunch of people that puts the whole case in perspective: the judge in the case value Mar-A-Lago at 34 Hunter Biden paintings. That’s really all you need to know, and all people will remember. Well, that and the massive bond Trump had to post so the pile of excrement Attorney General of New York didn’t seize his properties.
The garbage with the classified documents isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, as the prosecutor now admits to mishandling the very classified evidence in this case. It’s beyond stupid. Add in how Biden did even worse, and did so for years, and it just does no resonate with people in the way Democrats had hoped.
The “election interference” case in Georgia is a joke, with the District Attorney’s office seeming more like an OnlyFans hub than anywhere serious legal minds might work.
That leave Stormy Daniels. The best Democrats have for hanging a conviction on Trump for anything before the election hinges on the word of a woman who has previously sworn she never had sex with him. A woman who took a lot of money to never talk about it again, he claims she “just wants to get her story out there.” The opposite of which is why she took the money.
That’s not even the point of the case, it’s an accounting argument made up specifically for this case, based on an alleged violation of another law the prosecutor won’t name. You can’t make this up, but if you did it would be more coherent than this crap.
Ultimately, people won’t care about this either.
I don’t know if Trump had sex with Stormy, all I know is I don’t care. Trump isn’t running for Pope and doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not. Everyone who supports him knows this. Everyone who hates him knows this, as much as they don’t want to acknowledge it. The idea that voters will care is absurd.
Still, Democrats think this could, might, maybe finally drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. It won’t. Even non-supporters recognize Trump has been a playboy in the past – the guy has bragged about it – and don’t care. You can have a guy who proclaims himself to be a “devout” Catholic who seems to desperately love abortions and mutilating the genitals of children while passively embracing the hatred of Jews, or you can have a guy who may or may not have had sex with a woman who was attractive at the time and be able to afford groceries, gas and your rent or mortgage.
That’s what Democrats will not allow themselves to understand. Which do you think will win that argument?
Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.