Erick Erickson is working hard to keep his flock together, demonizing the other side as much as he can:
Unfortunately for Democrats, some of whom are complaining that “Trump would do this anyway” even without those prior indictments, we actually have a 45th presidential administration where no such things happened and that was also the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Two wrongs do not make a right, but Democrats did start this. Trump intends to finish it. And the ratchet gets ever tighter because, as the Democrats kept lecturing us, “no one is above the law.” After all, Letitia James was not indicted by Donald Trump nor Pam Bondi nor the deep state nor Hillary’s server, nor any of the nonsense talking points that Democrats have been trotting out in left-wing media, but by a jury of her peers. See how that works now, Democrats?
The missing element is context. Mr. James Comey was indicted … after Trump fired the Trump-selected prosecutor who refused to attempt the indictment and nominated a nobody with apparently absolute allegiance to the President, rather than the law.
That’s the key, what Erickson, despite his training in the law, doesn’t get. If the law appears to have been broken then the apparent malefactor should be put on trial – Republican or Democrat. If Mz James, on honest assessment, appears to have broken the law, then let’s see what happens at trial. What does Erickson seem to think? That his choice for President shouldn’t be prosecuted, while victim Democrats have brought this fate upon themselves.
And if President Trump … oh wait. In two cases juries indicted and found him guilty. In other cases, the GOP wing of SCOTUS bestowed immunity upon the President.
Yeah, it doesn’t stand up to real scrutiny, does it?
Even that bullshit sentence about Trump in his first Administration is so lacking in context that taking it seriously is an impossible intellectual task.
But will Erickson’s audience pick up on these intellectual faux-pas and discard Erickson’s argument? Hard to say. Some folks will read his tone as being authoritative and take Erickson’s argument seriously; others will react negatively to the tone and evaluate what he wrote dispassionately, as I try to do.
We’ll just have to see.
