Back in 2016, it was a feature of Trump rallies: the candidate would mention Hillary Clinton, and the crowd would start chanting “Lock her up!” In Oct. 2016, at their second presidential debate, Trump himself said it to Hillary: “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.” The Leftist establishment was not amused and inundated us with articles featuring various talking heads and political analysts saying this was nothing but banana republic stuff, and that it was extremely dangerous for a presidential candidate to talk about prosecuting, much less imprisoning, his opponent. Why, it was a threat to Our Democracy!
So where are all those “experts” today, now that a corrupt and hyperpartisan DA has indicted the chief opponent of the Biden regime on the flimsiest of pretexts?
In the days of the Trump-Clinton campaign, the Democrats and their media propaganda arms were certain that even to contemplate prosecuting one’s political opponent, and even worse, to joke about it, was the stuff of dictatorships and sham republics that gave the appearance of allowing an opposition but not the reality. Then-Sen. Al Franken, who was allegedly a comedian, was among the foremost po-faced guardians of Our Democracy to see no humor whatsoever in the “Lock her up” chants. In July 2016, he said that calls to try or imprison Hillary for mishandling classified information or anything else were “very banana republic,” and he claimed that the accompanying rhetoric of speakers at the Republican National Convention had “just been startlingly ugly.”
Where is Unfunny Al now? On Thursday evening, when news first broke of Trump’s indictment, he tweeted, “Remember when Trump said ‘I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose a vote.’ Well that might have been true. But he would have been indicted!” Gee, Al, that’s very banana republic of you, not to mention startlingly ugly!
Then there was the New York Times. In Nov. 2017, the Paper of Leftist Record warned that if Trump or then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions “does authorize a new investigation of Mrs. Clinton, it would shatter post-Watergate norms intended to prevent presidents from using law enforcement agencies against political rivals.” Zowie! It would be really bad, wouldn’t it, if presidents started going around using law enforcement agencies against political rivals? The Times added that “the request alone was enough to incite a political backlash, as critics of Mr. Trump quickly denounced what they called ‘banana republic’ politics of retribution, akin to autocratic nations where election losers are jailed by winners.” You don’t say? Politics of retribution, in which election losers were jailed by winners? Wow, that could never happen here in the good old US of A, now, could it?
On Thursday, however, the Times had nothing to say about banana republics, and instead reminded us that according to a Founding Father, “no former president was immune from criminal liability.” No Republican former president, anyway.
Back in July 2016, the Washington Post echoed the talking point: “‘Lock her up’ is the chant of a banana republic.” So where is the Post today? Is it warning about banana republics? Not quite. The indictment of Trump, the paper reported happily, “might break new ground legally,” and could “theoretically put him behind bars after a career of dodging findings of guilt in forums from Trenton, N.J., to Brooklyn to the U.S. Capitol.” The Post clearly thinks that would be a tremendous outcome. No banana republic worries from the Post now.
Related: Politico Admits Case Against Trump Is Weak, Watches Our Republic Circle the Drain, Says ‘So What?’
And what of Hillary Clinton herself? Back in Oct. 2016, she said of the “lock her up” chants, “That is the comment of a dictator that you expect to hear in a banana republic — the idea of jailing your political opponents.” She has been notably silent since the news broke about the indictment of Trump, but it’s a fair bet that when she does say something about it, her statement isn’t going to include anything about dictators or banana republics or the danger of using the power of the state against one’s political opponents.
The Democrats constantly posture as the squeaky-clean party of rectitude facing off against corrupt Republicans, but their moral uprightness is all hypocrisy and entirely one-sided. They hated the idea of prosecuting political opponents when contemplating the prospect of one of their own, indeed, one of their foremost leaders, facing the consequences of her actions. But when their bête noire is the victim of a corrupt, politicized prosecution, that’s just fine. Enjoy your banana.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member