Shot While Trying to Escape

Judge Juan Merchan has placed a “gag order” on former President Donald Trump to stop his public criticism of the trial proceedings in New York. Yesterday word came out that the judge has threatened to jail Mr. Trump if he continues to disobey the gag order. Mr. Trump has already paid $9,000 in fines for violating the order on nine different occasions, but that trivial financial penalty has not stopped him from denouncing the order as an unlawful cancellation of his Constitutional right to free speech. He has also delivered a few frills and blessings on both judge and prosecutors for subjecting him to a “sham proceeding” because he is running for the presidency.

Legal experts have pointed out that while gag orders are sometimes issued to protect trial defendants, they are never issued to protect prosecutors or judges from public criticism. This is an unprecedented move made to stop scrutiny of a judge and prosecutors who clearly intend to convict and ultimately defeat the former Chief Executive. The judge doesn’t want Mr. Trump using his public bullhorn to shine light on prosecutorial misdoings, or on him and his family.

The report of possible jail for Mr. Trump set off alarm bells all over the country, and certainly in the mind of this writer. Media of all political stripes love this, for it answers their fundamental question of “Where’s the conflict?” But the prospect of a former president – currently running for the office again – being separated from his Secret Service detail’s protection and placed under the control of parties of unknown intent, including malicious prisoners, is a situation fraught with peril and outright danger. Every citizen, of any political persuasion, should regard it with the utmost trepidation. It must be stopped before the unthinkable is allowed to happen.

Imagine awakening one morning to hear reports that former President Donald Trump was “shot while trying to escape” from the New York City jail – or that he had hanged himself in his cell (ala Jeffry Epstein). I’ll be mocked for saying this, but it is not a far-fetched prospect. Such events have happened. And once the unspeakable deed is done, it cannot be undone. It would absolutely tear the country apart. An executive order cancelling the November elections might even be part of the aftermath.

More than that, the prosecution and jailing of any future presidential candidate (of either party) will now be not only possible, but actively encouraged. It will be the “ace up the sleeve” of political activists who see their guy falling behind in a campaign. Democrats are trying to sell the idea that their prosecution of Donald Trump is just a one-time deal, because he is a uniquely bad guy. But the idea’s not credible, and the public isn’t buying it.

Even savvy Democrats are realizing that their future candidates will be subjected to this newly concocted style of political hardball. What politician, who values his reputation and his life, will willingly subject himself (or herself) to such an ordeal? It will destroy not only the presidency but our entire system of government, from the federal level down to state and local levels. Threatening the persons and lives of opposition-officials and candidates is something that banana-republics do. Is that our national aspiration? Is it the way we want to conduct ourselves?

Having speculated on the worst that could happen, what can I suggest to prevent it? I see at least four courses of action:

[1] Secret Service protection. Earlier in this piece I pointed out the danger to Mr. Trump, should he be stripped of his protective Secret Service detail. Under no circumstances should that be allowed to happen to him or to any other candidates for high office. But moves are evidently afoot to do just that. An op-ed piece by Peter Parisi (“Biden and Thompson’s shameful weaponization of Secret Service”; Washington Times; May 7, 2024) described legislation proposed by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi). It would remove Mr. Trump’s Secret Service detail if he is “convicted” in any of the politically-motivated trials now in process. Mr. Parisi says the legislation has no chance of passage, but the warning shot has been fired. He also mentions the Biden administration’s denial of Secret Service protection for Robert Kennedy, Jr., who has mounted a third-party candidacy that could damage Mr. Biden’s re-election try. The degenerate hope that RFK, Jr.’s campaign might meet with an “unfortunate accident” could hardly be clearer. It’s another warning shot across the political bow, and it’s really ugly. All possible pressure should be applied by politicians of both parties to ensure that every candidate receives full Secret Service protection. (As I write this, I can’t believe it’s even necessary to say it.)

[2] Conservative media taking the field. No matter how much reporters of both conservative and liberal disposition are enjoying the “conflict” of the Secret Service protection-issue, it should be clear – at least to conservatives – that this is not a fun game. It is a deadly serious matter, and they should be raising hell over it. Little is being said about it on Mainstream Media organs, so conservative writers and broadcasters are our only hope for informing the public that they’re being prepped for possible unspeakable tragedies that could be prevented by correct application of protective means already established by law.

[3] Citizens calling. Late in George W. Bush’s second term, in June 2007, the U. S. Senate drafted a “comprehensive” immigration bill that was supported by the president of the United States, a bipartisan group of senators, the leaders of their caucuses, and the editorial boards of the country’s most important newspapers. It was cruising under the radar to easy passage, until bloggers and talk-radio-show hosts caught wind of the bill’s provisions, broadcast its flaws, and urged citizens to register their opposition by telephone. Ordinary people then jammed their senators’ switchboards – upsetting what had begun as a quiet legislative coup. Their calls overturned the apple cart by reducing senate positive votes to 46, when 60 were needed for passage. Columnist Rich Lowry, who called it the “phone call mutiny,” warned Congress and other governmental personages to beware of an aroused citizenry. Wrote Mr. Lowry: “The fight over the immigration bill was the first instance of an insider parliamentary struggle in which bloggers, talk-radio hosts and citizens were able to have a major voice through the synergistic power of the Internet, radio waves and telephone lines.” This can be done again on an issue as important as Secret Service for presidential candidates of any party. I respectfully urge citizens to act without delay. I plan to do so as well.

[4] Militia mobilization. In November 2000, with Florida presidential electors awaiting the final popular vote count, GOP candidate George W. Bush had an apparent lead in the state of just 535 votes, out of some 6 million cast. Noting the small margin, Democrat candidate Al Gore withdrew his earlier concession to Mr. Bush. Soon after, Democrat Party leaders requested recounting in four Florida counties where they believed Mr. Bush’s narrow lead could be erased. What followed was called “The Brooks Brothers Riot” by media commentators. This was a crowd of some 50 white-collar demonstrators who thronged into the counting office in Miami-Dade County, Florida, on the morning of November 22, 2000, with the goal of stopping the selective recount. No one was armed, and there was no violence, but the re-counters got the message and high-tailed it out of there. Soon after that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against any partial recounts, and the election was called for Mr. Bush. This action, by what amounted to an informal militia, stands as a model for protecting a candidate, should his (or her) Secret Service be removed. Many able people – including military and police vets – would willingly serve as volunteers in a protective “militia” in such circumstances. Now would certainly be a time to mobilize, before some terrible event can occur. As an absolute minimum, Mr. Trump must be kept out of jail. Assurances by his prospective jailers that all will be fine will not suffice.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” (Charles Dickens: A Tale of Two Cities.)