The Rubicon Crossed: Trump's Political Prosecution Risks Destroying Our Republic

In 1959, Alabama Attorney General John Malcolm Patterson indicted Martin Luther King Jr. for felony perjury. Much like disgraced DA Alvin Bragg in New York, the Alabama attorney general—a Democrat—escalated a misdemeanor into a felony charge in an unprecedented indictment. Stephen McIntyre's X thread reminds us that this action mirrored the current case against Donald Trump, where the objective are VERY clear: to sideline a political adversary through lawfare.

One significant difference between the 1960 trial of Martin Luther King in Democrat-controlled Alabama and the 2024 trial of Donald Trump is striking. Even the Democrat judge in Alabama allowed King to present expert evidence on tax accounting. In contrast, the Democrat judge in 2024 prevented Trump’s defense from presenting highly exculpatory expert evidence on election finance law from former FEC Chair Brad Smith. Today's Democrat courts exercise levels of unfairness that even segregationist courts in 1960 couldn't imagine.

The intent of the Democrat lawfare against Martin Luther King was "to harm Dr. King as much as possible." Similarly, the intent of modern Democrat lawfare is to harm Trump as much as possible. Joe Biden, of course, was a protégé of former KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd and a modern practitioner of the same tactics.

Political prosecutions are a dangerous precedent for any republic. The US is entering uncharted waters. Dr. Alex Petkas reminds us that political prosecutions brought down the Roman Republic. Donald Trump is the first US president to be indicted, let alone ruled a felon by a US court. The court system of any society is designed to be a neutral arbiter of disputes; trust in the courts is crucial to prevent spirals of retributive violence.

In ancient Rome, office holders were immune from prosecution while in office. A consul could not be prosecuted during his term, nor could a "proconsul," who typically served as a general or provincial governor. In 50 BC, Julius Caesar was a proconsul. Caesar's enemies, including Cato, were publicly vowing to prosecute him once his term ended. Caesar, a successful general who had conquered all of Gaul, wanted to run for consul again to renew his immunity. Unfortunately, running for consul required him to lay down his proconsular office and become a private citizen in Rome for several months—ample time for prosecution.

Caesar sought an exception to run in absentia, but by 50 BC, his enemies had repealed the law allowing this. Cato and his allies forced Caesar into a dilemma: either lay down his office and face prosecution or start a civil war. In 50 BC, Caesar's legal term was expiring, and Cato drew Rome's other greatest leader, Pompey, to their side. Despite Caesar's attempts to negotiate, ultimatums were issued, and they all believed Caesar would back down. Instead, Caesar took the nuclear option and crossed the Rubicon in January 49 BC, effectively declaring war.

This historical example underscores why political trials can be so dangerous. Without a neutral arbiter, the recourse often becomes violence. Caesar claimed Cato and the Senate were corrupt and motivated by personal animosity, while Cato and his allies labeled Caesar a threat to the Republic. With no one to adjudicate, except the gods of war, the situation escalated.

The threat of prosecution motivates heads of state to cling to power in many "third world" countries. A dangerous precedent has been set. The Biden family now has reason to fear prosecution if they lose the election, raising the stakes massively.

From Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC to avoid political prosecution, to the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, Rome endured a long period of civil war, ultimately ending in the establishment of a monarchy. Dr. Alex Petkas rightly asks if the die is already cast for America...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana