top of page

The Right Resistance: Will the country ever be the same if the Democrats convict Trump?

“What happens next?”

I suppose it depends on the “what” the asker is talking about in posing the question. When it comes to the current inane tribunals involving former president Donald Trump and his purported “crimes” that Democrats in various locales are pursuing him for, the fear of the unknown after effects is very real, indeed.


The term “uncharted territory” is bandied about a lot these days, and it includes guessing on whether juries or judges will actually pursue these grudges to their furthest illogical conclusions or if “justice” might prevail and Trump is set free with an apology from the interrogators and begged to treat his accusers lightly after he ascends to the presidency again. Yeah sure. Leniency.


Either way, it’s difficult to envision what will happen after the “it” is all over – if it ever is.


In an opinion piece titled “If Trump gets convicted, what happens next?”, contributor Chris Truax wrote and answered his own question at The Hill last week:


“So are we likely to see Donald Trump gagged or jailed? That all depends on Trump. Perhaps he will behave himself. But these things are real possibilities for the former commander in chief, just as they are for any criminal defendant.


“The rule of law can sometimes be a harsh mistress. There is a very real possibility that one of our two major presidential candidates will be a convicted felon and serving time by November. That’s bad enough. But if he is elected despite a conviction, then constitutional crises don’t come much bigger than that.


“Yes, jailing a former and possibly future president would be unprecedented. But these are unprecedented times, and unprecedented things are going to happen. Trump facing jail, especially for contempt of court, is one of the less bizarre scenarios we are likely to see play out in the coming months.”


Blah, blah, blah. I don’t know nor have ever heard of Chris Truax, and his short bio “Chris Truax is a charter member of the Society for the Rule of Law and an appellate attorney” doesn’t shed much light as to his genuine beliefs.


But Truax does provide hints as to his personal thoughts in his piece, repeatedly taking issue with Trump’s courtroom behavior, apparent violations of “gag” orders and defiance of the judge’s (Judge Juan Merchan) admonitions as though the former president of the United States deserved no allowances for his current position and that Trump should be treated the same as any common street felon who was arrested for indecent exposure.


Then again, New York City wouldn’t prosecute a petty crime like indecent exposure, so it’s not truly the same, is it?


Assessing what would happen to Trump if he’s convicted is therefore little more than an academic exercise at this juncture, since the wholly corrupted government law enforcers involved here aren’t credible or worthy of respect and esteem. They’re basically political trash, and if Trump can’t keep the contempt off his face when he’s under their procedural iron boots, who can blame him? The term “witch hunt” doesn’t accurately describe what’s going on, either. The accused witches in Salem probably had more due process rights in the early 1600’s than Trump does now.


Will Trump be jailed? Paroled? Excused? Fined? The New Yorkers will try anything they can get away with. The worst of the American “justice” system is on display right now. What happens afterwards is anybody’s guess.


The law is legitimate? Does anyone still believe it? Among a number of milestones I’ve reached or will reach this year is the thirtieth anniversary of my graduation from law school. I must say, even after three decades, I don’t portent to understand the law any better now than I did way back then, mesmerized and perplexed as I was – and am – by the human component in legal proceedings.


Lawyers in the Trump trials – on both sides – go back and forth introducing motions containing widely different interpretations of statutes and constitutional provisions, largely ignoring the plain language of the words in front of them in order to advance obscure theories of guilt or innocence, all in the hope of trying to influence or appease the decider of fact (judge or jury) who, at least in the case of average citizens sitting in judgment, couldn’t possibly have a clue as to what’s really going on in the courtroom.


One can’t help but think, having been through the process of training young lawyers, that most of what was taught in law school was useless and irrelevant, the entire system geared towards ginning up the highest theatrical quality the teams could muster. In the case of the judges, they’re mostly political appointees – politicians disguised in black robes – who know in advance what they’re going to rule in any situation, the motion itself being anticlimactic and a thorough waste of time and resources.


It hasn’t always been that way, having researched a number of this nation’s preeminent legal minds – George Wythe, John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, etc. – who took it seriously what they were doing and earnestly attempted to give credence to both sides of any argument, just as they may have been taught (as we students were in the early 1990’s) in moot court competitions.


Indeed, the notion that a defendant is entitled to counsel and a jury of his peers – and a speedy trial – are ingrained into the The Law That Governs Government, otherwise known as The Constitution, which Democrats and Liz Cheney swear that they’re adhering to as they’re pursuing their personal and political vendettas against Donald J. Trump.


Does anyone actually buy that New York’s Alvin Bragg, Georgia’s Fani Willis or federal Special Prosecutor Jack Smith gives a rat’s patootie about the law? If these law enforcers cared, they would’ve tried much harder to discover neutral forums to conduct their trials of Trump the defendant. All of these jurisdictions are renowned for their heavy Democrat-concentrations where the outcomes are practically preordained.


That’s the “human element” I mentioned earlier. I don’t recall exactly where I heard it, but I remember once being told that “The law in any location is what the judge says it is.” That’s how the guilty-as-sin participants in the Trump “Russian collusion” farce were let off scot-free from Washington DC juries who probably didn’t even listen to the evidence and testimony much less comprehend what they were being told.


All the jurors needed to know was that the trial involved Donald J. Trump, and that was enough for them. The same thing has happened over and over again regarding the January 6, 2021 “insurrectionists”, many of whom didn’t do a darn thing that day other than follow the crowd into the U.S. Capitol building. Some did some bad things – and deserve to be punished for them. The rest? It’s a sad joke to keep them locked up and ruin their lives.


In the larger sense, most people probably got their knowledge of trials watching Judge Lance Ito in the O.J. Simpson case, quickly surmising that judges do just about whatever they want, including allowing a defendant who was a hundred ways guilty to go free just because his high-dollar sleazebag attorneys were better at putting on a performance for the pre-biased jury than were the prosecutors (also Democrats, by the way).


“If it doesn’t fit, you MUST acquit!” I think America would’ve gotten a fairer result presenting the facts in front of Judge Wapner of “People’s Court” fame.


The same goes for Donald Trump in the current legal scrum, which is playing out about as predictable as anyone could foresee. Faced with an obviously biased judge and a jury pool made up of Trump’s non-peers in ultra-Democrat New York City, the result will be questioned by at least half the populace the moment it is handed down by the jury and read by the judge. If Trump is convicted, the appeals process will begin immediately and then the “show” receives an extended run to last until who knows when.


Establishment media members will suggest in a guilty verdict that the process was fair and “worked as intended” and “justice was served” and “no one is above the law” and will demand that Trump be handled like any other schlep who’d been through the system without hint of compassion or contrition. They’ll have already obtained an appropriately sized orange jumpsuit for the occasion, and the security in the room/building/city/state will be beefed up to suit the perceived threat.


Anyone who protests, of course, will be treated with suspicion, the Democrats anticipating a primordial cry of unfairness at Trump facing “justice” as interpreted by people who despise him. The law isn’t supposed to be personal or vindictive, but it is these days. It’s always the state or the city vs. the defendant, right?


“The law is reason-free from passion.” Aristotle (courtesy of “Legally Blonde”).


As Truax presented, Trump could be sent to jail. He could be released on bail. He could face parole. None of this accounts for what will happen among the people themselves. Trump’s backers see the whole thing as a production and stage show, the worst kind of political targeting and Banana Republic-like exposure of enemies that this nation has ever experienced.


You can’t help but think Trump’s supporters won’t take this sitting down. Will there be mass protests? Will the Biden administration call out the national guard and the armed forces? Will Trump’s campaign coffers then fill to the maximum like a southern California dam in this rainy season? Will Trump’s poll numbers bump up (or down) by five points? Will Nikki Haley finally endorse Trump?


What will happen if there’s a conviction? Realistically speaking, the country will go crazy. The Biden half and the hags on “The View” will beam bright smiles. Conservatives, American traditionalists, admirers of history and American exceptionalism will stare at each other and wonder what to do.


One way or another, “what happens next” will be sad, very sad.

  • Joe Biden economy

  • inflation

  • Biden cognitive decline

  • gas prices,

  • Nancy Pelosi

  • Biden senile

  • January 6 Committee

  • Liz Cheney

  • Build Back Better

  • Joe Manchin

  • RINOs

  • Marjorie Taylor Green

  • Kevin McCarthy

  • Mitch McConnell

  • 2022 elections

  • Donald Trump

  • 2024 presidential election

27 views0 comments


bottom of page