Biden admin report on the admin's withdrawal from Afghanistan and concludes it was all Trump's fault

Like the dementia patient's Afghanistan bugaloo, the phony indictment of Trump is of course Trump's fault. I'd love to know what the "Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States" consisted of and what the "provocations and norms violations" were. Just like what the "serious crime" was that was mentioned in the indictments but was never cited. Always conclusions, but never any facts.

https://ace.mu.nu/

Law Professor: This Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment. It's Trump's Fault for Making Alvin Bragg Turn Our Legal System Into a Joke.
—Ace
The Professional Managerial Class had an undiagnosed, untreated nervous breakdown in 2015-2016, and discarded notions of professionalism, sobriety, and rationality entirely. They destroyed the prestige and authority their institutions built up over, in some cases, literally a thousand years of human history, burning it all up in just a few years in a literally mad frenzy to Get Trump.

Some of them are beginning to realize this.

Writing in the New York Times of all places, professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman writes an analysis titled, "The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment."


But he's pretty sure he knows who's responsible for the unhinged maniacs who fancy themselves as Stewards of Our Civilization turning into vicious, animalistic monsters:

It's Trump's fault, obviously.

Look what he made us do.

Tuesday was historic for the rule of law in America, but not in the way Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would have imagined. The 34-count indictment -- which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments -- was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.
This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump's opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.

The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption -- only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election.

Instead of the rule of law, it would be the rule of the circus.