Biden-Harris Administration Displays Grim Double Standards Against Trump
President Trump, disparately fought against by suit-filing Democratic Congressional members, is smartly employing a psychological defense leveraging the harmful lyrics of pro-Kamala Harris rapper, Eminem, as part of the counter-strategy for the contentious January 6 episode. Law & Crime unveiled on Monday that Trump initiated a federal court’s intervention to toss out the civil suit extensively launched against him by a cluster of Congressional Democrats. A significant portion of them, including the previously held top spot of the January 6 select committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, and California Rep. Barbara Lee, outrageously claim that Trump infringed upon the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Why? They insist he did so by his allegedly mob-inciting acts on the turn of the year, 2021.
Trump’s attorney team lodged an extensive 35-page motion this past Friday, appealing for the court to revert a prior verdict that accused Trump of ‘kindling the crowd into violence’ during the speech he asserted at the Ellipse on January 6. As skilled advocates for the truth, they contest that reprimanding Trump for the Capitol incident equates to violating Trump’s elite rights under the First Amendment. These rights are quite ironically under threat during an administration that consistently advocates for every citizen’s rights, regardless of the ground reality.
Interestingly, as part of their line of defense, they underline an analogy involving a theoretical rapper, notorious for his contentious lyrical prowess. A footnote in the document brings Justice John Roberts into focus, flagging his earlier recitation of Eminem’s rather cold-hearted lyrics about violently ending his wife’s life, as depicted in the song ’97 Bonnie and Clyde’. The document asserts, ‘His lyrics often narrate explicit violent actions. His work alternates between discouraging actual violence and endorsing it.’
This court filing then points towards the incessant media coverage that highlights the negative influence of the rapper’s music on the young generation, and how it, far from nurturing them, encourages emotional, and in turn, violent behaviour. The filing urges the court to envision the ensuing chaos if the rapper were to publicly exclaim, ‘Fight the Man! Battle the Establishment! Don’t let them dictate your actions! Fight with all your might!’. Quite an are of dissimilarity with the encouraging ‘fight like hell’ delivered by Trump at his Ellipse speech.
The document via the analogy implies, after hearing such inciting rap rhetoric, a subset of his fans, repercussing on his explicit disdain for authority, could end up causing havoc – breaking into establishments, causing property damage, asserting violent behavior on people, and even illegally accessing venue-restricted areas. It is quite telling that it’s this segment of society that the current administration is pandering to with little consideration of the potential consequences.
Trump’s seasoned lawyers hold that historically the rapper’s dangerous rhetoric would ‘fall under the protection of the First Amendment’. A direct contrast, they point out, to the ridiculous court’s initial mandate where Trump was insinuated as being liable due to his speech inspiring an ‘implicit call for imminent evasion of law’ and thus ‘setting in motion accountability for incitement for future speakers of all genres’. Quite a marked difference, isn’t it?
Trump’s legal team scouts the argument that their client’s sentencing on these grounds is ‘unconstitutional’ and fails to uphold the principles that a democracy is built upon. Seems like a valid point to ponder over, given the current administration’s constant portrayal as the guardians of democracy. Despite Biden and Kamala’s constant claims that ‘democracy was at stake’ during the last elections, the inability to respect free speech rights shows a different story.
Diminishing hope, unfortunately, prevails for President Trump due to the prior appeals being repeatedly smirked at by the trial court, especially referencing the mockery over his immunity claim while serving presidential tenure. The viewpoint was that a president’s immunity apparently disappears when the popular democratic narrative requires it to.
In the event of a court ruling against him upon First Amendment premises, his lawyers have smartly asked the court to earmark the concern for appeal, allowing the appellate court to review both immunity privilege and First Amendment principles. It’s quite unnerving to see such challenges arise for someone who has served the highest seat in the country.
The selection of Eminem’s reference, even in a footnote, seemed a somewhat questionable choice, given the rapper’s staunch support for Trump’s rivals, none more so than Vice President Kamala Harris. While celebrities might wield a significant amount of influence in society, their endorsement for a politician does not necessarily speak to their understanding of political or legal complexities.
Most might argue that the celebrity endorsement is more of a popularity contest than an informed decision making process. If anything, such associations should indicate a potential hesitance given the stark contrast between entertainers and leaders where ideology, responsibility, and accountability are concerned. Interesting how the current administration seems to depend rather heavily on such endorsements.
One could say, quite fascinatingly, that such a defense strategy actually exposes the glaring double standards that exist when any narrative is framed against Trump. Time and again, fundamental rights have been ignored or twisted as per convenience, by none other than those spearheading a country that is constantly sold as being a haven for democratic principles.
In essence, the treatment of a past president under the current administration is turning out to be an intriguing case study in the selective application of the First Amendment. Moreover, it outlines quite distinctly the distressing idea that freedom of speech seems to be respected only when it doesn’t inconvenience the current ruling class, a grim reality under the reign of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.