We’re going to lean on our buddy Joe Cunningham here, as his take on this, the fourth time a left-wing Democrat prosecutor has secured an indictment against former president Donald Trump, seems pretty much what we’d say.

And here’s Joe, writing at RedState, on the indictment…

Having read the full indictment document and as many takes as I can from people who are or were in law, it’s clear that this isn’t just another Alvin Bragg situation. Trump and his legal team do need to be concerned with this in a way they don’t need to be with the New York case.

First, there’s a reason to compare this with the New York case and not either of Jack Smith’s cases. Trump is being charged with state crimes in both, rather than federal crimes in the case of Smith’s indictments. That makes things a bit more problematic for Trump – he can’t pardon himself or be pardoned by a Republican in either case.

Cunningham notes Andy McCarthy’s piece in the New York Post suggests there might be a little bit of meat on these bones…

What should most concern Trump is that the Georgia case could be the most enduring of all the criminal indictments.

If Trump or another Republican were to win the 2024 election, the new president could issue a pardon or otherwise have their Justice Department drop Smith’s federal indictments against Trump.

Indeed, that is why Smith is pushing so hard to get the federal courts in Washington and Florida to accelerate the schedule and get the cases to trial in the next few months — before Election Day 2024.

Presidents, however, have no authority to pardon state crimes.

It remains to be seen whether Wills can convince a jury of Atlantans to convict Trump. But even a newly elected President Trump could not make the Georgia prosecution go away.

If he were convicted, it would stick.

Cunningham notes that Georgia has a very broad RICO statue, and of course that means lots of opportunities for overzealous prosecutors like Fani Willis. He thinks while this is still a case based on a “novel legal theory,” like all of these indictments seem to be, there’s a bit more here than, say, in New York.

But this all really comes down to Trump being prosecuted for saying things Democrats don’t like, and somehow it’s apparently criminal in America to voice suspicion about unfavorable election results precisely like Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Georgia’s own Stacey Abrams did.

You don't need to do criminal acts to support criminal acts, RICO or otherwise. But "he tweeted publicly in furtherance of a criminal enterprise" is dumb precisely because of the nature of mass communication. It's just lefties being upset at his tweeting.

— (((Not That Crown, Maybe))) (@CrownMaybe) August 15, 2023

And what this might come down to is what was in Trump’s head following the 2020 election, something which seems like an overwhelmingly difficult problem for a prosecutor to solve…

She also has to prove that Trump didn’t think the election was stolen, which might be quite the uphill battle. If Trump is able to convince jurors that he was following the advice of lawyers and really did believe that the election was stolen, that’s a blow to the DA’s case that she can’t recover from. The entire premise of the indictment is that Trump was planning before Election Day to claim the election was stolen, and suggesting that this fact is enough to prove he intended to steal the election in Georgia regardless of what happened.

If she can’t prove that, then nothing else sticks. If Trump says he was led to believe that because of what these lawyers and activists in his inner circle convinced him that was going to happen, the case is weaker. He, in his defense, will make himself out to be a person attempting to stop fraud.

The most problematic case for Trump remains the Mar-a-Lago case. He is accused of ignoring subpoenas and attempting to hide evidence. It has nothing to do with his state of mind regarding the election. He (allegedly) willfully ignored a grand jury. But this case is different it’s serious – far more so than the New York case – but is still a much tougher sell to a jury.

But, if he’s found guilty, it will stick in ways the Mar-a-Lago case won’t.

This is just one more brick in a rather flimsy wall of crimes-which-aren’t-crimes, process crimes and bureaucratic traps these four indictments have built. They’re attempts to criminalize political activity, for the most part, or in the New York case, to make political an activity which isn’t inherently political and so to then criminalize it.

If you’re like us and you doubt Trump can get a fair trial in the venues where these indictments were filed (other than the Mar-a-Lago case, we’re going to say he’ll have a hell of a time finding an unbiased jury pool), you see convictions in his future whether they’re warranted or not.

But even if that doesn’t happen, these cases will result in trials which will be happening in the thick of the presidential race. They constitute a level of election meddling that dwarfs anything Trump could ever have been guilty of following the irregularities of 2020.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? It’s clear the Left will stop at nothing to preserve their political power. It’s a case of never-ending escalation until we aren’t choosing our government through elections but rather, through…other means.