Jeb Bush Decries ‘Very Political’ Witch Hunt of Donald Trump in Two-Tiered Justice System

Republicans of all stripes are coming together to blast the current indictment of Donald Trump. Even John Ellis (Jeb) Bush, the former Republican governor of Florida and 2016 Republican presidential contender, who is often a critic of the former Republican president rallied behind him. Jeb Bush took to Twitter and wrote that the case against Trump “is very political, not a matter of justice.”

His full statement on Twitter was “Bragg’s predecessor didn’t take up the case. The Justice Department didn’t take up the case. Bragg first said he would not take up the case. This is very political, not a matter of justice. In this case, let the jury be the voters.”

Bragg’s predecessor didn’t take up the case. The Justice Department didn’t take up the case. Bragg first said he would not take up the case. This is very political, not a matter of justice. In this case, let the jury be the voters.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) April 1, 2023

The strong defenses of Trump noted by politicos and legal scholars alike contrast with many of the weak arguments presented by the opposition on why this weak charge should go forward. In some social media circles there are quotations from Federalist Paper no.69 where Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Hamilton compares this to the “sacred and inviolable” personage of the King of Britain who is above the law.

There are a number of reasons why this passage does not fit the indictment of Trump. The first is that Hamilton here is talking about a case where a president was impeached, tried, and convicted by Congress. Trump, despite being impeached twice (with the second impeachment being of questionable constitutional status), was never convicted.

Even if one were to read the latter clause of Hamilton’s writing that a president is “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law” devoid of the first clause (in the event of impeachment and conviction), this is still a weak argument.

True, no one person no matter the office should be above or below the law. The alleged details of the case against Trump are not on the order of “treason, bribery,…high crimes or misdemeanors” that Hamilton was talking about. The case is that Trump through his alleged hush money payments to Stormy Daniels is in violation of election law.

Jim Jordan Warns Alvin Bragg That ‘Everything’s On The Table’ Following Trump Indictment

Even the Washington Post editorial team acknowledged that the strategy behind the charges “was also novel” and called it “a poor test case for prosecuting a former president.” Now the court where the case is first to be tried may ignore this but that does not change that fact. So much for “prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of the law.”

The case behind the indictment is, as noted by the civil rights lawyer Robert Barnes on Twitter, wrought with “[c]onstitutional violations…[These being] 1/ Selective prosecution in violation of 1st Amendment; 2/ Subornation of perjury in violation of due process of 14th Amendment; 3/ False prosecution outside statute of limitations in violation of 4th & 14th Amendment.”

Constitutional violations by #Bragg in #TrumpIndictment
1/ Selective prosecution in violation of 1st Amendment;
2/ Subornation of perjury in violation of due process of 14th Amendment;
3/ False prosecution outside statute of limitations in violation of 4th & 14th Amendment.

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) March 31, 2023