So a pair of “conservative legal scholars” seem to be stating clearly according to a recent MSN article, These august gentlemen argue that there is “abundant evidence” that Trump engaged in an insurrection, citing his efforts to change vote counts through threats and intimidation and urging his supporters to march on the Capitol.

So “abundant evidence” negates the need for silly things like trials and guilty verdicts – no appeal except maybe (they claim) to Congress – and see, The Donald is a nasty, evil, mean guy which the 14th Amendment “automatically” bars from office.

Apparently just based on an accusation and what some “disinterested” people claim is abundant evidence.

Such is what passes for scholarly inquiry in 2023 America.

Justice the American way, right?

But if that is the way that politics and justice works in 2023, I am tickled pink. Why?

Accusations and “abundant evidence,” sure! I accuse Uncle Joe of being a crime lord, and with lots of evidence, and that therefore he is in a continuing state of insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. That he has violated his oath of office to obey and protect and defend the Constitution. So he should be removed from and barred from office. (And be helped to get medical help: he has the money, after all, even if his ill-gotten millions (or billions?) are taken away.)

(Which reminds me – if the Trump organization were a bank, would they be “too big to fail” to the FedGov? But since it is not a bank, could all these federal and state charges, if he is convicted, be an excuse to force it all to be forfeited? Actually, remember that there are thousands of cases of “civil” and “criminal” forfeiture of assets without a conviction. Sometimes even though there were no charges or charges were quickly dropped. Hmmm.)

But back to guilty without being proven, and Uncle Joe.

If “conservative” scholars can pronounce this decision about The Donald, then why can’t others (like “liberal” scholars) do the same thing to Uncle Joe. And remember, that doesn’t even include the racketeering issues with Joe’s boy. And an attempt to cover this up (with help of the media and various government agencies) that smells more and more like a variant on Watergate.

The strongest argument(s) against doing to Joe what he is trying to do to Donald is Kamala Harris. And perhaps Kevin McCarthy. And who knows who Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell would come up with for a new VPOTUS to replace Harris.

Of course, for many of us, it just reminds us of what we’ve known for a very long time: American government is a criminal enterprise: if not legally, certainly morally.