Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

Entries the past several months have been an intentional diversion from the craziness in Washington. Starting with Entry #352 put us back inside the Beltway.

The preceding three entries described a trial and conviction of Donald Trump. Charges were fraud, tax evasion and several other felonies. One of the entries described how Trump’s counsel claimed that Trump was insane and therefore all charges should be dropped.

Although this blog is written about events to occur sometime after 2020, some current events eerily parallel the predictions. This past week, for example, Trump’s lawyers did not plead their client was insane, but Trump’s lawyers did present an argument in Federal court that can only be characterized as insane.

The case centered on whether Trump should be forced to release prior income tax returns to several parties that have rights to review – e.g., standing investigatory committees of Congress and the Attorney General of the State of New York.

In layman’s terms, Trump’s counsel argued the president was exempt from all laws, even murder. The exemption applied to any crime committed by Trump, even if committed before taking office.

Such an argument from Trump was not new. During the campaign, Trump claimed he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes from his base.

Even more insane than the argument of Trump’s counsel about criminal exemption for a president, was Trump’s claim that all the evidence supporting multiple findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election was fabricated, even the evidence gathered by Robert Mueller. According to Trump, the investigations were initiated in secret under the Obama Administration.

Why would the Obama Administration falsify such evidence and promulgate such lies? If you believe Trump, the entire effort was to ensure that Hillary Clinton would be elected. “Yes,” you say, “that’s the reason.” The Obama Administration cooked up the elaborate conspiracy to make sure Clinton got elected.

For all the Trump supporters who believe Trump’s claims – and now an equally bizarre and unsubstantiated claim by Attorney General Bill Barr of a conspiracy inside DOJ – ask yourself this simple question. “If the alleged conspiracy by the Obama Administration was to discredit Trump, and make sure Clinton got elected, then why did the Obama Administration wait until after the election to say anything publicly about Russia’s attempt to interfere with the election?” As yourself, “Why was the Mueller investigation about Russian interference started only after Trump was in office?”

How do actions taken after the election was over help Clinton get elected? “Uh, uh,” you mutter, “there still was an Obama-led conspiracy. Even though there’s no evidence, I know it happened.”

Trumpsters, please try and connect just two dots when it comes to Trump. You don’t have to try and connect three dots, just two. Start with the date of the general election (Dot A). Compare Dot A to the dates the investigations started (Dot B). Yes, the election was before any public announcement of Russian interference or an investigation.

If connecting two dots is too difficult, then try this. A few entries ago I suggested you think about the following, “Assume everything about Trump presidency were exactly the same – all the executive orders, policies, cabinet appointments, tweets, insults to domestic and foreign leaders, ballooning federal deficit, days playing golf at taxpayer expense, sucking up to Putin and Kim Jung-un, betraying the Kurds, etc. – everything’s the same except one thing. Instead of Trump being a Republican, Trump is a Democrat. If Trump were a Democrat, would you support Trump as strongly as you support him today?”

If more than 5 out of a 100 Trumpsters say “Yes, I’d support Trump as a Democrat,” then I’d be shocked. More likely no more than 5 out of 1,000 would support Trump as a Democrat. So, if you’re not one of those 5, why do you support someone so fervently that you would likely want impeached if he were a Democrat?

Why are you so opposed to an inquiry about impeachment? As a reminder, an inquiry is not a trial. An inquiry is more like a grand jury that hears testimony from various witnesses to determine if there should be an indictment and then a trial. To be fair to the possible defendant, the grand jury testimony is held in secret. Doing so avoids effectively convicting someone in public before a trial.

Wouldn’t you think some of the Republicans in Congress who are lawyers might remember about investigatory procedures from time as prosecutors or defense attorneys? Or, does being a Congressional Republican during the Trump presidency require checking one’s brain at the door?

When the Trump fiasco is finally resolved, and likely criminal charges are filed at both the Federal and state level, who should be the one pleading insanity:

  1. Trump for acting the way he’s always acted? Trump the self-centered, ego maniac who pronounced this past week that he was the entire presidential team and made all the decisions, thereby implying no one else in the cabinet or White House mattered.
  2. You, the Trump supporter?

Go find a mirror, look at yourself in the mirror and think hard about who’s really the one who’s insane.