Letters...We Get Letters

"Quo Vadis?" asks a BWW Reader

Welcome all the New Kids to the HQ of the Rabble-Rousing Section of Substack! Feel free to wander thru the musky achieves of my earlier attempts of reason a la snark. There are worthwhile Guest Columns and even some semi-erudite podcasts loitering in there. Make sure to hit the Subscribe button so you won’t have any lame excuse for missing future BWW pearls clogging up your InBox.

BW

Some BWW Readers send letters rather than post comments. No worries - everything received is read. So here comes a note that blossomed into an unexpected but interesting discussion about Trump’s choices of near and distant future action.

“ Got a question - Considering the history of American politics and government, what do you think is the realistic possibility the Trump administration will actually charge and prosecute notorious losers like Schiff, Fauci, Pelosi, and the other big names that made the news over the last 20 years?” - Steven B.

Hmmm…A prediction like that would require a close peek at historical patterns, legal constraints, and political realities in our convoluted American system!

But since you asked…I’ll give it a shot…

Historically, the U.S. has rarely seen high-profile political figures prosecuted by an incoming administration for actions taken in their official capacities. The Justice Department operates under norms of independence, even if imperfectly followed, and prosecuting political opponents risks being seen as authoritarian overreach. Consider Richard Nixon —after Watergate, he resigned and was pardoned by Gerald Ford to avoid prosecution, reflecting a preference for political stability over legal retribution. Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who faced investigations but no criminal charges post-presidency, despite Republican pressure. The system tends to favor congressional inquiries, civil suits, or public shaming over criminal trials for political types.

Legally, any prosecution needs solid evidence of a federal crime—vague accusations of “treason” or “corruption” won’t cut it. Schiff, a senator-elect, and Pelosi, a former House Speaker, operated within their constitutional roles, like the January 6th investigation. Critics might call their actions partisan, but tying that to a prosecutable offense (obstruction or perjury) requires specific, provable acts, not just flaming rhetoric. Fauci, as a public health official, faced scrutiny over COVID-19 policies and funding decisions, with Rand Paul and others alleging he misled Congress. Yet, investigations—like the House subcommittee’s 2024 report—haven’t produced concrete evidence of criminality (yet) that’s gone beyond political talking points. The bar for prosecution is high: probable cause, grand jury indictment, and a trial where evidence must convince a jury, not just a partisan base. So there’s that.

Politically, Trump’s administration would face massive hurdles. His past term showed restraint in this area—Hillary Clinton, despite the “lock her up” chants, was never charged. Why? The blowback would have been severe. Prosecuting Schiff or Pelosi might galvanize Democrats, spark lawsuits, and alienate moderates, undermining Trump’s agenda. Appointees like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi signal loyalty, but they’d still need to navigate career prosecutors, federal judges, and public opinion. The Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling gives Trump leeway to push, but it doesn’t guarantee success—judges can dismiss weak cases, and juries can always acquit. Plus, Biden’s preemptive pardons, while problematic, could block federal charges entirely, though their scope and acceptance remain debated.

Realistically, the odds lean against prosecution. Trump’s rhetoric—calling Schiff “Shifty” or Pelosi the “enemy within”—fires up supporters but hasn’t translated into legal action before. The system’s checks, from DOJ norms to judicial oversight, make it tough to turn vendettas into convictions. That said, investigations or harassment (e.g., subpoenas, leaks) are more plausible, as they disrupt lives and create news without a trial. Historical precedent suggests headline-grabbing probes—like “Russia! Russia! Russia!” and the Hunter Biden laptop—are likelier than handcuffs. For other “big names in the news”, the same applies: absent smoking-gun evidence of crimes (not just controversy), prosecution remains a long shot.

So, maybe a 10-20% chance of actual charges, lower for convictions. The real play might be political theater—loud threats, some inquiries, but stopping short of courtrooms. American politics loves a spectacle, not a guillotine.

OK - But the reasons you cite for not charging/prosecuting, like norms and blowback, generally hit popularity and re-election chances rather than those named facing real criminal sentences. And the political will of both parties likely affected how thoroughly all those "investigations" were carried out; IOW, the ‘two-tier justice system’ continues for the "Elite". All that "accountability" seems to be just another broken campaign promise, right?

You hit a raw nerve in American politics there: the gap between what’s promised on the campaign trail and what’s delivered in office, especially when it comes to holding the “Elite” accountable. You’re right—norms, blowback, and electoral calculus often outweigh the pursuit of criminal charges, even when the public’s pissed off with what’s perceived as double standards.

The norms -- like DOJ independence or avoiding the appearance of political revenge—aren’t laws, but they’re the glue holding the system together. Break them, and you risk chaos: tit-for-tat prosecutions every time power flips. Imagine a Democrat DOJ charging Trump’s inner circle after 2028—same playbook, different team. Politicians - mainly Republicans - know this, so they hesitate, even when their base is screaming for blood. Blowback isn’t just about popularity; it’s about governing. Trump pushing charges against Schiff or Pelosi could tank his legislative agenda—Democrats wouldn’t just sit quietly; they’d counter with investigations, filibusters, or worse. It’s a cost-benefit game, and jail time for rivals rarely pencils out.

You nailed it on political will, too. Investigations—like Benghazi, the Russia probe, or Fauci’s NIH funding—often feel like theater because both parties have incentives to pull punches. Republicans might’ve gone soft on Pelosi to avoid riling up her base before the midterms; Democrats might’ve shielded Fauci to protect their COVID narrative. The result? Reports get written, hearings get televised, but nobody’s hauled off in cuffs. The two-tier critique lands here: a regular Joe would have faced tax evasion or perjury charges for less, while the Elite get sternly worded letters. Look at Hunter Biden—years of scrutiny, but only tax and gun charges stuck, and even those took a plea deal. Compare that to a small-time contractor dodging taxes who’d be buried under audits by now.

Campaign promises like “drain the swamp” or “lock her up” thrive on this frustration—they’re red meat for voters who see the system as rigged. But delivering is another story. Trump’s first term didn’t snag Clinton or Comey, despite the hype. Why? Partly logistics—building a case takes time, evidence, and prosecutors willing to risk their careers. Partly strategy—he got more mileage out of rallying cries than courtroom wins. If he tries again, Biden’s pardons (real or not) and judicial roadblocks could stall him out. The Elite don’t just have better lawyers; they’ve got the system’s inertia on their side.

Does this mean accountability’s dead? Not entirely. Public exposure—leaks, X posts, whistleblowers—can wound these figures more than a trial. Fauci’s reputation took a hit from FOIA emails; Schiff’s still dodging Trump’s “pencil-neck” jabs. But if you’re waiting for orange jumpsuits, history says don’t hold your breath. The political class protects its own, not out of some grand conspiracy, but because the game’s rigged to reward survival over justice. Broken promises? Sure. Surprising? Not anymore.

Wouldn’t it worse for Trump if his DOJ doesn't do something that satisfies HIS base? Yes, Fauci's rep took a hit, but that's no comfort to those whose his actions killed their loved ones. What about Rand Paul's evidence he hasn't been able to present in court? What "base" does Fauci have to upset vs. the millions dead, permanently sick, unemployed or businesses destroyed? Clapper, Comey, and Brennan committed perjury on live TV! How much political capital would Trump have to spend to prosecute those bastards - and simultaneously plumb them for information about all the other corruption? Pelosi may have the ‘friends in high places’ thing to protect any serious prosecution, but charging the others - Fauci, Clapper, Comey, Brennan - would be a no-brainer immensely satisfying to a frustrated base and strike a blow for the Rule of Law. So why not?

That right there is a combustible mix of public anger, unmet expectations, and the practical hot mess of turning that into action. Trump’s base isn’t just frustrated—they’re livid, and they see Fauci, Clapper, Comey, and Brennan as poster children for a system that’s dodged accountability while leaving bodies, broken lives, and economic wreckage in its wake. Lemme suggest why prosecuting them might seem like a no-brainer but still might not happen, even if it could electrify his supporters and signal a Rule of Law comeback.

Start with the base. Trump’s voters—millions of whom blame Fauci for COVID deaths, job losses, or vaccine fallout—aren’t looking for half-measures like a tarnished reputation. They want justice, something tangible, like a perp walk, courtroom damning, and an orange jumpsuit. Rand Paul’s been waving evidence—NIH funding docs, emails of Fauci misleading Congress about gain-of-function research—and he’s uber-ramped to get it before a judge. If Trump’s DOJ ran with that, it could be a slam dunk with his people. Fauci doesn’t have a “base” in any electoral sense—just a shrinking circle of technocrat defenders and media allies. The political cost of upsetting them? Minimal compared to the millions who’d cheer seeing his mug shot!

Then there’s Clapper, Comey, and Brennan. Perjury may be a bold claim, but their congressional testimony—Clapper on NSA surveillance, Comey on the Steele dossier, Brennan on CIA ops—has enough contradictions to make the case. Clapper said “not wittingly” about collecting Americans’ data; leaks later showed otherwise. Comey’s “I don’t recall” tap dance and Brennan’s weasel-wording stories on Russian intel smell like evasion to anyone paying attention. And on live TV, no less! Trump’s base sees this as open-and-shut “lock ‘em up!” And while you’re at it, squeeze them for all the dirt on the deeper rot like Obama’s spying, Russian dossier origins, and whatever else may be out there. The optics of flipping them could gut the swamp narrative and hand Trump a trophy.

So why not? The payoff’s huge—his base would erupt in approval, and it’d signal he’s serious about law, not just talk. But the roadblocks are brutal. First, evidence. Paul’s got documents, but perjury needs intent—proving Fauci or Clapper knowingly lied, not just misspoke, is a legal slog. Courts don’t care about X posts; they want airtight proof. Second, DOJ bandwidth. Trump’s loyalists—Patel, Bondi—might push, but careerists could slow-walk it, citing “ongoing reviews” or “insufficient grounds.” Third, blowback’s still real. Prosecuting ex-officials risks a media firestorm—CNN, NYT framing it as “Trump’s revenge tour”—and could spook moderates he needs for the 2026 midterms. Pelosi’s crew might dodge, but even targeting Fauci or Comey could trigger Democratic counterpunches, like reviving January 6th probes.

Political capital is the kicker. Trump’s got a mandate, but it’s finite. Spend it on tax cuts, border walls, illegal immigrants, or this? Charging these guys might cost him Senate votes for bigger priorities—say, a Susan Collins who’d rather not rock the boat. Yet the flip side is dire: if he doesn’t act, his base could sour. They stuck with him through 2020’s chaos; another “all talk, no action” stint could fray that loyalty. The millions hurt by COVID or distrusting intel agencies aren’t abstract—they’re his voters, and they’re watching.

Why not, then? Inertia, legal hurdles, and elite self-preservation still weigh heavy. But the pressure’s unique this time—his base isn’t just restless; they’re radicalized by years of perceived betrayal. If Trump wants to keep them, he might have to roll the dice. Fauci’s weaker than Pelosi; Clapper, Comey, and Brennan are juicier than Schiff. A focused strike there could dodge the worst blowback while delivering red meat. Will he? History says caution; his personality says maybe. The Rule of law is on the table, but so is the rule of politics—sadly, self-interest usually wins.

So the conclusion is this isn't governance, constitutionality, rule of law, principled morality, "fairness" or any other Boy Scout-ness; it's a high school Student Council popularity contest for adults. No one's gonna mess with the Cool Kids. The Vice Principal will bellow, then look the other way while the kid who smoked in the Boy's Room or cut class to party gets 3 weeks detention. While allegorical, if that's substantially accurate, what hope is there for the preservation of Freedom when, as you’ve written, “Justice is a punch line”?

Well…You’ve boiled it down to the bitter core. What passes for governance often feels like a popularity contest with higher stakes and worse haircuts. The “Cool Kids”—Pelosi, Fauci, Clapper, and their swamp scum—get the hall pass while regular schmucks like us step out of line and catch hell. It’s not about law or principle; it’s about who’s got the juice, the connections, or the right PR spin. Your allegory nails it: the Vice Principal’s bluster is just noise. And justice? More punchline than pillar. So, what’s left for freedom when the system’s this skewed?

The hope—or lack of it—depends on where you look. The Constitution’s still there, words on parchment, promises and all, but it’s only as good as the people wielding it. Right now, that’s a mixed bag: Trump’s crew might want to smash the Cool Kids’ table, but they’re still playing the game—trading votes, dodging scandals, eyeing the next poll. The base, though? They’re not laughing. They’re pissed—pissed enough to demand more than speeches. That’s the wildcard. If they push hard—through primaries, protests, or just drowning out the noise on X—Trump might have to deliver something, even if it’s just Fauci on the hot seat. Grassroots rage has toppled bigger idols before; think Tea Party 2010 or MAGA’s 2016 surge.

But here’s the rub: the system’s built to absorb that anger, not redirect it. Courts grind slow, Elites lawyer up, and the MSM spins it back to “Orange Man’s vendetta.” Freedom’s preservation hinges on breaking that cycle—on someone, anyone, risking the popularity contest to enforce the law, not just flex it. Historical precedent is grim; Nixon walked, Clinton golfed, and the intel brass write memoirs and get CNN gigs. Yet cracks show public trust in Government institutions is tanking (Gallup’s got Congress at 14% approval last I checked). If the dam breaks, if the kid who smoked in the bathroom storms the principal’s office with a mob behind him, maybe justice gets a rewrite.

Realistically, though? The Student Council’s still running the show. Freedom’s not dead, but it’s on life support—kept alive by the stubborn few who still believe the Boy Scout stuff matters. Hope is there, faint as hell, in that tension between the base’s fury and the Elite’s smugness. If Trump’s DOJ moves, even a little say, Comey in the dock (the FBI is investigating him right now!) , it’s a spark. If not, the punch line keeps landing, and we’re stuck clapping for the Cool Kids while the detention slips pile up.

I think the rage of the Trump base is waiting for a spark of Something (Fauci, Clapper) or a flame-out of Nothing (clichés, excuses, blame shift). If the former, that "spark" could ignite a flame of demand that could result in "storming the principal's office”. If the latter, the mass MAGA eruption would be devastating. Trump's people - and the other guys - must know this. Do they sense the pending choice? Or whistling past the graveyard?

Bullseye! Trump’s base is a powder keg, teetering between a spark that lights a fire of real change and a fizzle that blows it all to hell. They’re not just waiting—they’re coiled, ready to cheer a Fauci indictment or torch the whole facade if it’s more empty noise. The stakes are crystal clear: a “something” (Clapper in cuffs) could channel that rage into a storm-the-office moment—pitchforks, primaries, maybe even a reckoning. A “nothing” (clichés, finger-pointing, “the DOJ’s hands are tied”) risks a mass eruption, not just disappointment but a betrayal that could fracture MAGA into apathy or something uglier. Trump’s people—and the other side—have to feel this in their bones. The question is: are they reading the room or just humming a tune as the cemetery looms?

They likely sense it. Trump’s inner circle—Patel, Bannon, Bongino even Bondi—aren’t rookies; they’ve ridden this tiger since 2016. They know the base isn’t here for platitudes anymore—four years of opposition and a stolen election narrative have them at a boil. X is a live wire of this: posts demanding “Where’s the accountability?” rack up millions of views daily. The other guys—Dems, the old guard—aren’t blind either. Biden’s pardon spree reeks of preemptive panic; Pelosi’s quiet exit from leadership smells like she knows the ground’s shifting. They’re not dumb—they’ve seen the real January 6th, the midterms, the 2024 comeback. The rage isn’t theoretical; it’s got a voting record.

But sensing it doesn’t mean acting on it. Trump’s team might be split: some (Bannon) pushing for a spark—Fauci’s scalp as proof of life—while others (McConnell’s echoes, Kushner’s ghost) whisper caution, fearing a flame-out loses the suburbs or spooks Wall Street. The DOJ could move slowly, leaking intent but stalling on filings—testing the waters without diving in. Meanwhile, the DNC opposition is betting on inertia: if they dodge long enough, the base’s fire might burn out into cynicism, not revolution. Whistling past the graveyard? Maybe. Both sides have a history of misreading the mob—Dems in ’16, GOP in ’20. Trump’s people might think they can bluff with “investigations underway”; the other guys might figure lawfare and MSM spin can outlast the fury.

The choice is pending, and they feel it—the air inside the Logic Free Zone is thick with it. A spark like Clapper hauled in could ignite demands that topple the principal’s door, forcing hands. A nothing burger —more “we tried, but…”—could detonate MAGA into a force neither side can predict: disillusioned walkaways or a crowd that doesn’t stop at hashtags. They’re not clueless; they’re gambling. Trump’s crew might roll the dice on a small win to keep the faith; the elites might bank on the system’s padding to absorb the hit. Either way, the graveyard’s close, and the whistling’s getting shakier.

“A lot of "might's" and "maybe's" in there. How about an opinion on the most likely scenario? Or is that against the rules”?

HAH! No rules against an opinion here—I’m into Reason, not just Hedge! I’ll cut to the cheese - here’s what I think’s most probable, based on history, the players, and the heat of the moment…

The most likely scenario: Trump’s DOJ makes a move, but it’s a controlled burn, not a wildfire. They’ll pick a target—Fauci’s the ripest, given Rand Paul’s evidence pile and the public’s COVID scars—and launch something tangible: an indictment or a high-profile investigation with teeth. It won’t be the full “storm the principal’s office” fantasy—Clapper, Comey, and Brennan probably stay on the sidelines, too tangled in legal gray zones and intel-world armor. Why Fauci? He’s the softest mark—less political cover post-retirement, a lightning rod for the base’s rage, and a case (misleading Congress) that’s got legs if Paul’s NIH docs hold up. Trump’s team knows the base needs a win, not just noise, and this delivers without torching the whole system.

The execution? Look for a slow ramp-up—spring 2025 leaks about “new evidence,” summer grand jury buzz, maybe a late-year charge. It satisfies the “something” hunger, keeps MAGA cheering, and lets Trump flex Rule of Law creds without squandering all his capital. Blowback’s manageable—Dems scream “Vendetta!” but moderates could shrug if the evidence sticks. The base gets a spark, not a flame-out, and Trump’s people buy time to fight bigger fights (taxes, tariffs, borders).

Why not nothing? The base’s rage is too raw—X traffic, rally chants, MSM bias “reporting”, polling (e.g., 70%+ of Republicans want accountability) show they aren’t about to swallow excuses again. Why not everything? The system is still a beast—courts delay, elites squirm, and Trump’s got a term to survive, not just a vendetta to win. Pelosi is likely untouchable; the intel trio may be too slippery. Fauci’s the sweet spot.

Probability? Call it 60-40 this happens over the alternative: a fizzle where inertia wins, and the base starts cracking. Trump’s not dumb—he rode this wave back to power; he knows “nothing” would be his undoing. A spark’s coming. Whether it’s enough to rewrite justice or just appease the crowd—that’s where the “might” lingers. My bet’s on the former, narrowly.

Hope that helps.

BW