The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly
Only 5% of Washington, D.C. voters
cast their ballots for Donald Trump in 2020, reflecting how thoroughly
anti-Trump the jury pool is there. It appears impossible for
anyone perceived to be a Trump supporter to receive a fair jury trial in D.C.
There is a 100% conviction rate by
D.C. jurors of anyone associated with Trump, while there has been a 100%
acquittal rate for prominent Democrats. The jury selection process in the trial
of Steve Bannon included startling revelations of how much animosity people in
government-funded D.C. have for Trump and his supporters.
In his second term as president
Donald Trump would finally dismantle the Deep
and details are already circulating of his credible plan to replace tens of
thousands of federal workers to make this happen. Some jurors may fear a loss
of their government job if Trump returns to power, or sooner retaliation by
liberals who might post home addresses of jurors who dared to vote in favor of
Trump or his supporters.
It is often said that a prosecutor
can lead a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and a D.C. jury might even
convict that ham sandwich if it were associated with Trump. It may be
impossible to find 12 people in D.C. who would not face some kind of
retaliation if they were to side with a Trump-supporting defendant in a trial.
Retirees and housewives are typically
the most independent-minded jurors, but there are few of them in D.C. Nearly
every family in that city is dependent on government in some way for income,
which is why Trump received only 5% of their votes in the last election.
Trump could not obtain
a fair trial on anything in D.C., and Democrats are salivating at
the possibility of charging him before a jury there. It would be like a
presidential debate before moderators and an audience that were handpicked to
be stacked 95% against Trump.
Democrats plan to checkmate Trump by
getting him before a D.C. jury on unprecedented charges. Trump-hater Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been doing
everything she can to push criminal charges against Trump, while time is
running out for her with less than 3 weeks left before her primary in Wyoming.
Fortunately, the Constitution does
not permit unfair checkmates. When one or two political branches abuse their
power, as we watch the Democrat-controlled House improperly collaborating with
the Justice Department, then frequent elections in the House and its ability to
check-and-balance other branches should block the overreach.
Republicans are predicted to retake
control of the House of Representatives in January. Republicans should announce
now that they will reverse all injustices inflicted by the Pelosi-picked
committee that pursued its jihad against Trump.
The Republican House should rescind
all of the Democrats’ votes for contempt, and also vote that the subpoena on
which Bannon was prosecuted was invalid when issued. This should require
reversal of his conviction, and dismissal of the similar charges against Peter
The House should then pass
resolutions of pardon for every target of the Democrat-controlled Select
Committee on January 6th, including Bannon and others who exercised their
constitutional rights as supporters of Trump. A pardon of Trump is not needed
at this time but by pardoning Bannon and others the House would signal a
willingness to protect Trump against any politically motivated prosecution.
Our Founders intended for the House of
Representatives to be the preeminent governmental body in our country, to wield powers far in
excess of all other branches of government. No one can become a member of the
House without being directly elected by the people, and members must stand for
reelection every two years.
Revenue-raising bills can originate
only in the House, in further reflection of the Founders’ intent to give it the
greatest authority. The Constitution also authorizes the House to act alone
when it impeaches a president, which is something Democrats exploited twice
against President Trump.
Whether the House may act alone, or
with the Senate, in issuing a legislative pardon has never been decided by a court
of law. In 1974, the Justice Department’s highly respected Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) recognized the lack of any federal precedents on this issue, and
gave an opinion supporting a legislative
pardon power by Congress concerning the president but not generally of others.
The OLC’s view was that a president
cannot judge and pardon himself because of the inherent conflict of interest,
and by the same logic a president has a conflict of interest concerning
declining a pardon to his political opponent. It falls upon the upcoming
Republican House to exercise its legislative pardon power for Trump supporters,
thereby ending the political prosecution strategy pursued by Democrats.
Tyranny-by-prosecution happens in
dictatorships. House Republicans should now announce their plan to protect
Trump and his supporters against this injustice.
John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016)
and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and