Right-wing media figures vow revenge after Trump‘s conviction

[essentialsaltes]

Right-wing media figures vow revenge after Trump‘s conviction​

While not surprising, the furious bluster reverberating across right-wing media still carried its intended effect, burning away public trust in America’s core institutions and leaving a lasting impact on the legitimacy of the rule of law in the United States.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, who commands a following of millions of subscribers on YouTube and social media, said after the verdict that Trump “should make and publish a list of ten high ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office.”

The Federalist chief executive Sean Davis said he wants “to see lists of which Democrat officials are going to be put in prison.”

Gee, at least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list secret. But the projection among some of Trump's fans is pretty obvious. They secretly openly long to make arrests motivated by politics rather than the impartial application of the law.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Right-wing media figures vow revenge after Trump‘s conviction​

While not surprising, the furious bluster reverberating across right-wing media still carried its intended effect, burning away public trust in America’s core institutions and leaving a lasting impact on the legitimacy of the rule of law in the United States.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, who commands a following of millions of subscribers on YouTube and social media, said after the verdict that Trump “should make and publish a list of ten high ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office.”

The Federalist chief executive Sean Davis said he wants “to see lists of which Democrat officials are going to be put in prison.”

Gee, at least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list secret. But the projection among some of Trump's fans is pretty obvious. They secretly openly long to make arrests motivated by politics rather than the impartial application of the law.

I never thought I'd see the day when I start to think that what Nixon did was "quaint"...

 

[iluvatar5150]

Right-wing media figures vow revenge after Trump‘s conviction​

While not surprising, the furious bluster reverberating across right-wing media still carried its intended effect, burning away public trust in America’s core institutions and leaving a lasting impact on the legitimacy of the rule of law in the United States.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, who commands a following of millions of subscribers on YouTube and social media, said after the verdict that Trump “should make and publish a list of ten high ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office.”

The Federalist chief executive Sean Davis said he wants “to see lists of which Democrat officials are going to be put in prison.”

Gee, at least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list secret. But the projection among some of Trump's fans is pretty obvious. They secretly openly long to make arrests motivated by politics rather than the impartial application of the law.

I guess weaponizing the DOJ is okay now?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I guess weaponizing the DOJ is okay now?

The rightwing bubble is obviously spinning it like this:

And yet their proposed revenge looks nothing like what President Biden has done (or more properly, not done, as there is no hint that he has interfered in any of these matters.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Right-wing media figures vow revenge after Trump‘s conviction​

While not surprising, the furious bluster reverberating across right-wing media still carried its intended effect, burning away public trust in America’s core institutions and leaving a lasting impact on the legitimacy of the rule of law in the United States.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, who commands a following of millions of subscribers on YouTube and social media, said after the verdict that Trump “should make and publish a list of ten high ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office.”

The Federalist chief executive Sean Davis said he wants “to see lists of which Democrat officials are going to be put in prison.”

Gee, at least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list secret. But the projection among some of Trump's fans is pretty obvious. They secretly openly long to make arrests motivated by politics rather than the impartial application of the law.

It shouldn't be all that surprising right?

The "whatever you do to Trump, we're going to try to do to one of your guys" has been a repeating pattern for the GOP for roughly 8 years at this point.


There's several flavors of a saying "you don't live in a just society just because there is a justice system, you live in a just society if that justice system is applied equally"

While I think it's pretty evident that Trump is guilty of crimes (the jury agrees), and Trump's supporters who insist that the charges are "bogus" or still claiming his innocence are drinking the Kool-Aid... the one area where their gripe has a sliver of validity, is in the realm of "would they be pushing this hard to bust him for something like this under different circumstances?" and "would they pursuing another candidate with such vigor over a document falsification case?"


I've often heard some speculation (even from more progressive analysts and pundits) that "If Trump just would've exited politics, he could've faded away into obscurity and this stuff wouldn't be happening right now". And it's often been said that "The kinds of shady stuff he's doing now and getting called out for, he's been doing for 30+ years"

If all of those speculations have any measure of validity, then that still presents a somewhat flawed justice system (just not exactly in the way Trump fans claim it to be)


If it's a case where "if you just shut your mouth and stay out of our lane, we'll let you fade off into the sunset and leave you alone...but if you decide to be difficult and do this thing we don't want you to do, then we'll deep dive into your dealings and keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks", then that still presents a problematic approach to justice.


The "let rich guys go relatively unscathed so long as they don't make any waves and stay in their lane" is a problem.

For instance, if I was local prosecutor or judge, and had a track record of figuratively looking the other way or under-charging with regards to improprieties of all the rich guys in town, but then all of the sudden decide to go scorched earth when one of them in particular presents a political challenge to the front-runner for my team, people wouldn't be entirely off-base when taking issue with that and having a fairness-based objection. (especially if the timing was particularly disruptive to the campaigning cycle).


While I think that label of "weaponization" that GOP'ers use to describe it is a bit grandiose and implies some sort of Banana Republic scheme where they lock up an opponent on phony changes (which isn't what's happening here, it's been proven now that the charges are legit and he did in fact break laws, and even a conviction doesn't negate Trump's ability to still continue running and potentially win), the way I might describe what's occurring is "selective application of the law", which is where the person did in fact break laws, but the only reason they're pursuing it to it's fullest extent (when they may otherwise not) is because the person represents a political challenge.

 

[durangodawood]

It shouldn't be all that surprising right?

The "whatever you do to Trump, we're going to try to do to one of your guys" has been a repeating pattern for the GOP for roughly 8 years at this point.


There's several flavors of a saying "you don't live in a just society just because there is a justice system, you live in a just society if that justice system is applied equally"

While I think it's pretty evident that Trump is guilty of crimes (the jury agrees), and Trump's supporters who insist that the charges are "bogus" or still claiming his innocence are drinking the Kool-Aid... the one area where their gripe has a sliver of validity, is in the realm of "would they be pushing this hard to bust him for something like this under different circumstances?" and "would they pursuing another candidate with such vigor over a document falsification case?"


I've often heard some speculation (even from more progressive analysts and pundits) that "If Trump just would've exited politics, he could've faded away into obscurity and this stuff wouldn't be happening right now". And it's often been said that "The kinds of shady stuff he's doing now and getting called out for, he's been doing for 30+ years"

If all of those speculations have any measure of validity, then that still presents a somewhat flawed justice system (just not exactly in the way Trump fans claim it to be)


If it's a case where "if you just shut your mouth and stay out of our lane, we'll let you fade off into the sunset and leave you alone...but if you decide to be difficult and do this thing we don't want you to do, then we'll deep dive into your dealings and keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks", then that still presents a problematic approach to justice.


The "let rich guys go relatively unscathed so long as they don't make any waves and stay in their lane" is a problem.

For instance, if I was local prosecutor or judge, and had a track record of figuratively looking the other way or under-charging with regards to improprieties of all the rich guys in town, but then all of the sudden decide to go scorched earth when one of them in particular presents a political challenge to the front-runner for my team, people wouldn't be entirely off-base when taking issue with that and having a fairness-based objection. (especially if the timing was particularly disruptive to the campaigning cycle).


While I think that label of "weaponization" that GOP'ers use to describe it is a bit grandiose and implies some sort of Banana Republic scheme where they lock up an opponent on phony changes (which isn't what's happening here, it's been proven now that the charges are legit and he did in fact break laws, and even a conviction doesn't negate Trump's ability to still continue running and potentially win), the way I might describe what's occurring is "selective application of the law", which is where the person did in fact break laws, but the only reason they're pursuing it to it's fullest extent (when they may otherwise not) is because the person represents a political challenge.

Being a loudmouth jerk for decades and being president naturally attracts more scrutiny.

Plus I really dont think everyone does these kind of crimes. Trumps business practices seem to be quite a bit more shady than most.

Combine those two factors and, voila.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It shouldn't be all that surprising right?

The "whatever you do to Trump, we're going to try to do to one of your guys" has been a repeating pattern for the GOP for roughly 8 years at this point.


There's several flavors of a saying "you don't live in a just society just because there is a justice system, you live in a just society if that justice system is applied equally"

While I think it's pretty evident that Trump is guilty of crimes (the jury agrees), and Trump's supporters who insist that the charges are "bogus" or still claiming his innocence are drinking the Kool-Aid... the one area where their gripe has a sliver of validity, is in the realm of "would they be pushing this hard to bust him for something like this under different circumstances?" and "would they pursuing another candidate with such vigor over a document falsification case?"


I've often heard some speculation (even from more progressive analysts and pundits) that "If Trump just would've exited politics, he could've faded away into obscurity and this stuff wouldn't be happening right now". And it's often been said that "The kinds of shady stuff he's doing now and getting called out for, he's been doing for 30+ years"

If all of those speculations have any measure of validity, then that still presents a somewhat flawed justice system (just not exactly in the way Trump fans claim it to be)


If it's a case where "if you just shut your mouth and stay out of our lane, we'll let you fade off into the sunset and leave you alone...but if you decide to be difficult and do this thing we don't want you to do, then we'll deep dive into your dealings and keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks", then that still presents a problematic approach to justice.


The "let rich guys go relatively unscathed so long as they don't make any waves and stay in their lane" is a problem.

For instance, if I was local prosecutor or judge, and had a track record of figuratively looking the other way or under-charging with regards to improprieties of all the rich guys in town, but then all of the sudden decide to go scorched earth when one of them in particular presents a political challenge to the front-runner for my team, people wouldn't be entirely off-base when taking issue with that and having a fairness-based objection. (especially if the timing was particularly disruptive to the campaigning cycle).


While I think that label of "weaponization" that GOP'ers use to describe it is a bit grandiose and implies some sort of Banana Republic scheme where they lock up an opponent on phony changes (which isn't what's happening here, it's been proven now that the charges are legit and he did in fact break laws, and even a conviction doesn't negate Trump's ability to still continue running and potentially win), the way I might describe what's occurring is "selective application of the law", which is where the person did in fact break laws, but the only reason they're pursuing it to it's fullest extent (when they may otherwise not) is because the person represents a political challenge.

Drawing attention to yourself is always going to make people take a closer look at what you're up to. In Trump's case, not only did his entry into politics draw scrutiny, but it's what prompted his criminal behavior in the first place and it's what made some of those behaviors a felony instead just misdemeanors. It's hard to say that nobody else gets prosecuted for these things, when the comparison itself applies to very few people in the first place. Other people have been prosecuted for campaign violations of this nature. That wasn't on the table for the NY DA, but other crimes in service of that crime were.

Additionally, it's not uncommon at all for folks working in government to be subject to more scrutiny and tighter restrictions than those outside of government. Things that get you, at worst, fired in the private sector can get you sent to jail in government.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Precisely why he and all of his enablers should be kept far away from the levers of power.

 

[HTacianas]

Right-wing media figures vow revenge after Trump‘s conviction​

While not surprising, the furious bluster reverberating across right-wing media still carried its intended effect, burning away public trust in America’s core institutions and leaving a lasting impact on the legitimacy of the rule of law in the United States.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, who commands a following of millions of subscribers on YouTube and social media, said after the verdict that Trump “should make and publish a list of ten high ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office.”

The Federalist chief executive Sean Davis said he wants “to see lists of which Democrat officials are going to be put in prison.”

Gee, at least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list secret. But the projection among some of Trump's fans is pretty obvious. They secretly openly long to make arrests motivated by politics rather than the impartial application of the law.

If only Letitia James hadn't run on a platform of prosecuting Donald Trump. Or as she described him, "this illegitimate president".

 

[essentialsaltes]

If only Letitia James

had been involved in the criminal conviction that is the topic of the OP.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Being a loudmouth jerk for decades and being president naturally attracts more scrutiny.

Plus I really dont think everyone does these kind of crimes. Trumps business practices seem to be quite a bit more shady than most.

Combine those two factors and, voila.

Drawing attention to yourself is always going to make people take a closer look at what you're up to. In Trump's case, not only did his entry into politics draw scrutiny, but it's what prompted his criminal behavior in the first place and it's what made some of those behaviors a felony instead just misdemeanors. It's hard to say that nobody else gets prosecuted for these things, when the comparison itself applies to very few people in the first place. Other people have been prosecuted for campaign violations of this nature. That wasn't on the table for the NY DA, but other crimes in service of that crime were.

Additionally, it's not uncommon at all for folks working in government to be subject to more scrutiny and tighter restrictions than those outside of government. Things that get you, at worst, fired in the private sector can get you sent to jail in government.

With regards to the parts I bolded, yes, running for an office certainly draws more attention and media scrutiny, but the court of public opinion is where it usually winds up (and not actual court)

However, one of the things I was talking about included in my part of about "would they be doing this if circumstances were different?" was pertaining to if he constitutes a potential challenge to the established person.

He was a loud mouth (and as we've all agreed before, been engaging in shady - and sometimes criminal - business practices for decades) back in the lead up to the 2016 election as well.

However, many people thought (and 'conventional wisdom' dictated) that he had 0 chance of beating Hillary and even very few thought he was going to get through the GOP primary, the 'vegas odds' were on Ted Cruz...about the only people I can think of who actually "called it" correctly early on were a few fringe far-right characters like Milo and Ann Coulter.


So they weren't pursuing these kinds of legal scenarios against him back then, in my estimation, because they thought it was a waste of time/resources because nobody thought he was actually going to win, they thought the whole thing was just the latest iteration of "goofy rich guy funds his own campaign to run for office and get some attention, then predictably drops out since he has no chance of winning". He wasn't really perceived as a political threat.

People viewed Trump in 2016 (at least earlier on) the same way people viewed Vivek last year "Rich guy getting himself on TV, but there's no way he's gonna win"


This NY Times article (just as a potential point of reference)

Stock Trades Reported by Nearly a Fifth of Congress Show Possible Conflicts (Published 2022)

A New York Times analysis found that 97 lawmakers or their family members bought or sold financial assets over a three-year span in industries that could be affected by their legislative committee work.

www.nytimes.com

From 2019 to 2021, 183 current senators or representatives reported a trade of a stock or another financial asset by themselves or an immediate family member.

More than half of them sat on congressional committees that potentially gave them insight into the companies whose shares they reported buying or selling, an analysis by The New York Times has found.

The article has some pretty striking example. Yet, there doesn't seem to be the same amount of vigor in going down every rabbit hole to find instances of abuse of power and access to information, which common sense would dictate you know there's a least some of these guys leveraging insider information for reasons of personal advantage.

Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama and a member of the agriculture committee, regularly reported buying and selling contracts tied to cattle prices starting last year, even as the panel, by Mr. Tuberville’s own account, had “been talking about the cattle markets.”

Representative Bob Gibbs, an Ohio Republican on the House Oversight Committee, reported buying shares of the pharmaceutical company AbbVie in 2020 and 2021, while the committee was investigating AbbVie and five rivals over high drug prices.

The timing of one trade by the wife of Representative Alan Lowenthal, Democrat of California, was especially striking: His disclosure statement said she had sold Boeing shares on March 5, 2020 — one day before a House committee on which he sits released damaging findings on the company’s handling of its 737 Max jet, which was involved in two fatal crashes.


If you replaced any of these 3 names with "Donald Trump", there'd probably a queue of 20 blue-district prosecutors lined up chomping at the bit to launch probes into it (while also using those probes as a pretext for a variety of other matters of "incidental discovery")

 

[iluvatar5150]

So they weren't pursuing these kinds of legal scenarios against him back then, in my estimation, because they thought it was a waste of time/resources because nobody thought he was actually going to win, they thought the whole thing was just the latest iteration of "goofy rich guy funds his own campaign to run for office and get some attention, then predictably drops out since he has no chance of winning". He wasn't really perceived as a political threat.

People viewed Trump in 2016 (at least earlier on) the same way people viewed Vivek last year "Rich guy getting himself on TV, but there's no way he's gonna win"

Perhaps, but at the same time, nobody had really had cause to look at him prior to that, and he hadn't yet committed the crimes for which he is currently being prosecuted. And even now, the things for which he's being prosecuted are painfully obvious. Nobody had to go digging too hard to find him covering up his affair with Stormy, or his attempt to keep documents from the archives, or his attempt to steal the election. It was all just right there, waiting for a prosecutor to pick it up.

 

[KCfromNC]

Gee, at least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list secret. But the projection among some of Trump's fans is pretty obvious. They secretly openly long to make arrests motivated by politics rather than the impartial application of the law.

It's one of the things fascism was about - laws weren't supposed to be applied equally, they were meant to be broad so they could be easily targeted at out groups.

 

[durangodawood]

Perhaps, but at the same time, nobody had really had cause to look at him prior to that, and he hadn't yet committed the crimes for which he is currently being prosecuted. And even now, the things for which he's being prosecuted are painfully obvious. Nobody had to go digging too hard to find him covering up his affair with Stormy, or his attempt to keep documents from the archives, or his attempt to steal the election. It was all just right there, waiting for a prosecutor to pick it up.

Yes. The crimes were so "in our face" that failure to indict would be pretty much negligence.

Even more so with the I need you to find the votes case. Too bad that got snagged on the DAs poor judgement.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Clay Travis [of conservative sports news site OutKick that I never heard of before] Calls For Red States to ‘Start Indicting Democrats’ in Retaliation to Trump Indictment​

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps, but at the same time, nobody had really had cause to look at him prior to that, and he hadn't yet committed the crimes for which he is currently being prosecuted. And even now, the things for which he's being prosecuted are painfully obvious. Nobody had to go digging too hard to find him covering up his affair with Stormy, or his attempt to keep documents from the archives, or his attempt to steal the election. It was all just right there, waiting for a prosecutor to pick it up.

...I guess the part of it (at least to me) that makes look like a largely partisan "hack job" (and I didn't vote for him, and won't be this time either, just looking at it objectively) is the fact that of all the things against him, they seemed to go all-in on the one that seems the most frivolous for lack of a better term.

As you mentioned, refusing to return classified documents and engaging fake electors schemes are tangible and provable without having to do a Pepe Silvia style web of logic (if you're familiar with that reference) to build a case around, and seems way more "nefarious" than the details of this Stormy Daniels thing, so them going all in on this one (and pulling every legal lever in the book in the process) does give off a desperate "we just gotta get him...for something" vibe.

With all the talks of what a threat to democracy Trump is/was, they decided to go all-in on the one that wasn't actually a threat to democracy (falsifying docs to cover up the payoffs related to an extramarital affair).

It kind of has the tinge of the "Well, we're not 100% sure we'll be able to get Al Capone for all these other REALLY terrible things he did, so let's just start digging around in his tax records till we find something"

 

[iluvatar5150]

...I guess the part of it (at least to me) that makes look like a largely partisan "hack job" (and I didn't vote for him, and won't be this time either, just looking at it objectively) is the fact that of all the things against him, they seemed to go all-in on the one that seems the most frivolous for lack of a better term.

As you mentioned, refusing to return classified documents and engaging fake electors schemes are tangible and provable without having to do a Pepe Silvia style web of logic (if you're familiar with that reference) to build a case around, and seems way more "nefarious" than the details of this Stormy Daniels thing, so them going all in on this one (and pulling every legal lever in the book in the process) does give off a desperate "we just gotta get him...for something" vibe.

With all the talks of what a threat to democracy Trump is/was, they decided to go all-in on the one that wasn't actually a threat to democracy (falsifying docs to cover up the payoffs related to an extramarital affair).

It kind of has the tinge of the "Well, we're not 100% sure we'll be able to get Al Capone for all these other REALLY terrible things he did, so let's just start digging around in his tax records till we find something"

I'm not going to pretend that the hush money case was the most solid or the most damning, but it's not remotely accurate to say that anybody has gone "all in" on it; in fact, it seems to be the one in which everybody was least confident. What it is accurate is that it's the one that's gone to trial first - and that's as much Trump's doing as anybody's. There are still three other trials trying to get going.

 

[iluvatar5150]

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not going to pretend that the hush money case was the most solid or the most damning, but it's not remotely accurate to say that anybody has gone "all in" on it; in fact, it seems to be the one in which everybody was least confident. What it is accurate is that it's the one that's gone to trial first - and that's as much Trump's doing as anybody's. There are still three other trials trying to get going.

Perhaps "all-in" was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. But the efforts have been, at the very least, disproportionate. Both in terms of the severity of crime that was committed, and in terms of lengths politicians have gone to in order to cover up sexual improprieties.

As you noted before, there's not perfect "feature parity" in terms of incidents to compare it to, but there are some cases that are "in the ballpark" that we can use a point of reference should Trump end up getting jail time.

In terms of a severity comparison:

Chaka Fattah, does that name ring a bell? He was a US house rep from PA that was caught up in a number of scandals.
- Falsifying records (there were over 10,000 pages worth for the jury to review)
- Racketeering
- Both accepting and giving bribes (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars)
- Mail Fraud
- Misappropriation of both Government and Charity Funds (to the tune of millions of dollars)

The judge ended up tossing the bribery charges and gave leniency on the Mail fraud and racketeering, and he ended up doing a total of 10 years.

Trump is basically looking at a potential of 4 years per each of the 34 counts.


And while I hate to be "that guy" who brings up the Bill Clinton stuff from the 90's, he lied under oath multiple times in order to try to conceal his affair. Not sure how you view that in comparison to falsifying records to conceal an affair, but they're both in the same ballpark. The extent of the consequences for him was that the bar association revoked his ability to practice law (as if he really need it at that point, I doubt he was planning on going into private practice lol)


If Trump ends up getting even half the sentence that Fattah got over this Stormy Daniels situation, I think that won't bode well for the narrative that "this isn't political, it's just justice"


Perhaps a more succinct way to express what I'm talking about. Special treatment is bad and should never happen in the first place, but the absence of special treatment in one particular case involving one particular guy is just as conspicuous.

If I let 20 people off the hook for DUIs with a slap on the wrist, that's wrong, the right thing to do would be to give them their due punishment.

If that 21st guy (who I don't like) gets one, and that's the time I decided to be "Mr. Law and Order" and give them a strict punishment, while that's technically the right thing to do, the lack of doing that for everyone else in the past calls integrity and political motivations into question.

Or perhaps a more succinct way of putting it, giving everyone special treatment except 1, is itself, a different form of special treatment.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As you noted before, there's not perfect "feature parity" in terms of incidents to compare it to, but there are some cases that are "in the ballpark" that we can use a point of reference should Trump end up getting jail time.

In terms of a severity comparison:

Chaka Fattah, does that name ring a bell? He was a US house rep from PA that was caught up in a number of scandals.
- Falsifying records (there were over 10,000 pages worth for the jury to review)
- Racketeering
- Both accepting and giving bribes (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars)
- Mail Fraud
- Misappropriation of both Government and Charity Funds (to the tune of millions of dollars)

The judge ended up tossing the bribery charges and gave leniency on the Mail fraud and racketeering, and he ended up doing a total of 10 years.

Trump is basically looking at a potential of 4 years per each of the 34 counts.

That name does not ring a bell, but there’s no way Trump is doing 136 years for this. IF he gets sentenced to time, then I expect they’d be less than the max and all run concurrently; but I would not be surprised at all if he doesn’t get sentenced to any time at all.

And while I hate to be "that guy" who brings up the Bill Clinton stuff from the 90's, he lied under oath multiple times in order to try to conceal his affair. Not sure how you view that in comparison to falsifying records to conceal an affair, but they're both in the same ballpark. The extent of the consequences for him was that the bar association revoked his ability to practice law (as if he really need it at that point, I doubt he was planning on going into private practice lol)

I’m not going to defend Clinton and I’ve always thought the consequences for campaign finance violations were overly severe. (I realize Trump’s case wasn’t technically about campaign finance violations, but it was just one step removed). But them’s the breaks and Trump wasn’t the first to get in trouble for something like this.

If Trump ends up getting even half the sentence that Fattah got over this Stormy Daniels situation, I think that won't bode well for the narrative that "this isn't political, it's just justice"

I’d be inclined to agree, but I don’t think he’s getting anything close to five years.