The CubanAmerican Voice®

Criminalizing the U.S. Constitution

Criminalizing the US ConstitutionCriminalizing the U.S. Constitution

Leer en Español

The United States has a big problem. Its version of democracy is being deconstructed. Free speech, a prerequisite of democratic rule, is being restricted. Honest and competitive elections are being interfered with. This is being achieved through the utilization of the state’s police powers, which include its legal system. The law is being maliciously reconfigured, perversely interpreted, and conspiratorially applied to achieve the previously mentioned ends. Donald Trump’s fourth indictment is part of that end.

The Left and Trump haters from the Right may propagate to others that this only deals with the 45th president and his allies for their “wrongful” acts. Judging from empirical evidence and historical references, this is not the case. Trump’s third indictment focused squarely on redefining freedom of expression along ideological filters of acceptability, obstructing the political path of a candidate in a presidential election, and exercising, de facto, political persecution. The exact patterns of the past, tell us with certainty that this war on Trump is being waged as part of a broader objective.

The overarching goal is the deconstruction of the American sociopolitical system, which would consequently also overhaul its economic model. The specific path requires the opposition’s domestication, establishing norms of self-censorship, and controlling election results. This is something that dictatorships practice well. It should be well noted that all tyrannical regimes violate natural and human rights by using their legal systems. In other words, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and China all send people to jail using their laws and courts. Additionally, they also allow for the presence of defense attorneys to assure a proper optic image of “due process.” 


The fourth indictment levied against Trump and 18 others on August 14 by a Georgia grand jury, consisting of 41 counts, alleges that the former president, his lawyers, staff, and associates attempted to solicit votes to reverse the 2020 election results in that state. The legal merits found in the 98-page indictment rest on a concocted set of tilted clairvoyant assumptions, novel postmodern legal theory (specifically, Critical Justice Theory), and the ditching of established precedent case norms. The direct impact on the American political system of this mockery of the law is its insidious nature. It is a frontal assault on the exercise of protected speech and an overt attempt to interfere in an election; both factors were affixes to the third indictment.

This new attempt to put Trump behind bars, maneuvers its way into the fabric of how parties have traditionally operated within America’s peculiar electoral college format. The action of wielding influence to favorably impact election results, particularly in tight political contests, is a customary occurrence in American political history. It is legal, constitutional, and moral. In fact, no close election has failed to witness the subsequent scrutiny of a losing candidate’s and the party’s machinery, searching for votes that may have been omitted or wrongly counted. This is the nature of competitive elections.

No one has greater depth in this practice than the Democratic Party. This has been the case in every single tight election ever held in the U.S. The 2000 presidential contest is an example. Democratic lawyers and activists scrambled all over Florida, trying to persuade state officials and courts to see what they were perceiving. Alan Dershowitz, a legal scholar and a lawyer that represented Al Gore and the Democratic Party in the disputed Florida results of that year, admitted to having done nothing different than what Trump, his staff, and his legal team did in Georgia in 2020. The Harvard law professor and author, who still believes Gore won in 2000, charges against the Trump indictment and questions why he and others were not indicted or debarred for similar action in 2000.

It is important to note that the double standard in the American two-tiered legal system in function today is reflective, as was noted previously, of a component of a more ambitious project. The electoral college has long been a target of the Left and internationalists. With its elimination and a transition to a purely majority national vote, six coastal cities could determine the outcome of a presidential election. Trump’s fourth indictment will serve as fodder for the dismantlement of the electoral college.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” The intellectual heavyweight most responsible for the brilliance of the electoral college was Alexander Hamilton. This Founding Father, treasury secretary, and personal assistant to George Washington in the Revolutionary War was also one of the architects of the American democratic model. This sui generis component of the U.S. political system was designed to avoid the pitfalls of consensual government. Had Germany in the 1930s, for example, had a system where a similar group of statesmen could interject and check popular stupidity, Hitler may not have been elected. 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the daughter of a Black Panther member, was most likely raised to hate the American Republic. The Black Panthers, a communist domestic terrorist organization, waged a war to overthrow the U.S. government. Judge Willis is following in her father’s footsteps and attempting to fulfill his dreams. This could help explain the un-American nature of her actions. If Trump were not the leading contender, Democrats would target whoever is. What are Republican district attorneys and attorney generals in Republican enclaves waiting for before going to grand juries’ with evidence of Democratic politicians and their cronies’ misconduct, pursuing indictments, and beginning prosecuting? Fire must be fought with fire.

© The CubanAmerican Voice. All rights reserved.

J M Shiling autor circle red blue🖋️Author Julio M. Shiling 
Julio M. Shiling is a political scientist, writer, columnist, lecturer, media commentator, and director of Patria de Martí and The CubanAmerican Voice. He holds a master’s degree in Political Science from Florida International University (FIU) in Miami, Florida. He is a member of The American Political Science Association and The PEN Club (Cuban Writers in Exile Chapter).

Follow Julio on: 

          twitter X icon   

   📚Published books   📺In the media   👨‍🏫 Conferences and Symposiums    🎙️Podcast The Shiling Summary

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!