This is What a Real Constitutional Crisis Looks Like

As long as Donald Trump remains president, Democrats will not stop trying to remove him from office. They will never admit defeat and will never cease trying to undermine the president at every step. 

Because of this, a new precedent has been set in the political arena. We said early on in Trump’s presidency, that everyone will eventually be forced to pick a side. Neutral bystanders will no longer be allowed to exist. Partisanship will be forced upon all the citizenry. 

Shortly after Trump was elected, the attacks on him began to ramp up. So nakedly egregious is the injustice of the left that people who were not previously Trump supporters have begun to come to his defense.

What right or authority under the Constitution has the legislative branch to demand a private citizen’s personal and confidential tax information? No right, of course, but none of our founding documents mean a thing to the left any more. Their mission to destroy Trump supersedes any and all legality, constitutionality, or sense of right and wrong. 

This is a classic and overt Democrat hit-job on the Executive branch, and a classic case of compiling evidence in search of a crime. If they still cannot find any wrongdoing, the dems will then just leak Trump’s personal information to the press. 

Judges are no longer members of an impartial and independent judiciary. Many are leftist operatives, advocates and members in good standing of the Democrat Party. It’s why the judges who rule against Trump just happen, by sheer coincidence, to be Obama appointees. What are the odds? 

The leftist press has been trumpeting that over 800 former federal prosecutors drafted a letter stating that Trump obstructed justice. That sounds like a lot, but as Mark Levin states, it’s just a fraction of the tens of thousands of former prosecutors. Put in context, it’s not a big deal or a large number – but we’ll never hear that from the left. 

We’ve seen countless Democrats take to the nearest microphone to exclaim, like Nancy Pelosi, that Trump obstructed justice. Yet strangely, she has not been asked by the wholly incurious main stream press – obstruction of what? Just what criminal investigation is he guilty of obstructing – because you can’t obstruct justice without first having an underlying crime. So what is the crime, Nancy? 

The State of New York, is passing a law to force the president to release his personal tax information. It is illegal, under all circumstances, to pass a federal or state law aimed at one individual. They know this, but their naked partisanship will not allow them to stop short of breaking the law themselves. 

This is what is meant by post-constitutional. If the Democrats, either state or federal, can craft laws aimed at a single individual, we no longer have any foundational principals. The law is today whatever they want it to be, and can just as easily change tomorrow. 

What we are witnessing today is the most heinous act of betrayal of an election, an electorate, a presidency and of the Constitution this country has ever experienced. All other scandals pale in comparison. It’s not even close. 

We are in a post-constitutional period. And the precedents these Democrats are setting are so tyrannical that this “period” may become permanent. There may be no way to put this genie back in the bottle. Or put another way – there may be no stopping this ball from rolling further toward tyranny. 

I liken it to Newton's first law of motion, or the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. 

We are that unbalanced force. If we are unable to, not just slow, but stop this runaway train, it’s not hyperbole to say that our republic, as we know it, will be lost. What the Democrats are doing is just that serious. 


PUBLISHERS NOTE: To clarify the insignificance of the 800 "former federal prosecutors" signing a letter, the number could not possibly refer to the actual U.S. Attorneys who have been in charge of federal districts. This is what the media wants us to believe, but consider this. There are only 93 of these districts. If all the former prosecutors lived to be 100 years of age far fewer than 800 would be alive today. And at least half of them would be Conservatives who would never sign such a specious letter.

The letter itself admits that the signers are from "different levels of the federal system: line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Justice Department." If we take away all the bureaucrats mentioned, and only count the AUSA's (Assistant U.S. Attorneys), referred to as "line attorneys" in the letter, we are looking at between 6,000 and 7,000 who serve in an average year - roughly 70 AUSA's for every U.S. Attorney. 

So Levin's estimate that a few hundred "former federal prosecutors" represent only a tiny fraction of all of the people in that category is correct. But not one article I found in the liberal outlets put the number of signers in perspective of the number of those who did not sign. The signers are likely less than 1% of all former federal prosecutors.