According to the New Rules, Shouldn’t Stacey Abrams be Prosecuted?

Based on what Democrats are prosecuting Trump for right now, shouldn’t former Georgia governor candidate and media darling Stacey Abrams be under indictment right now?

The left is calling Trump a threat to democracy for questioning the outcome of an election.

That is precisely what Abrams has been doing for years.

Mia Cathell writes at Townhall:

Why Isn’t ‘Stolen Election’ Conspirator Stacey Abrams Behind Bars?

If anything, the fourth indictment against former President Donald Trump proves that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.

What would normally be protected under the Constitution, such as questioning election results, requesting phone numbers, and encouraging voters to watch TV, is now considered conspiratorial. The laundry list of indictment-worthy actions leveled against Trump and his allies leads to the pertinent question: If claiming an election is stolen makes you a criminal in Georgia, why isn’t Democrat election-denier Stacey Abrams, a two-time gubernatorial sore-loser who repeatedly refused to concede, in prison?

She’s certainly no Georgia peach. In 2018, Abrams lost the governor’s race to then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Due to losing by less than 1.4 percentage points, a narrow margin of defeat, Abram refused to recognize Kemp as the legitimate winner, claiming in sitdown televised interviews that the election was “tainted.”

Let’s take a walk down memory lane with Ms. Abrams.

This must just be (D)ifferent somehow.

Photo of author
Mike LaChance has been covering higher education and politics for Legal Insurrection since 2012. Since 2008 he has contributed work to the Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Breitbart, the Center for Security Policy, the Washington Free Beacon, and Ricochet. He has also written for American Lookout, Townhall, and Twitchy.

You can email Mike LaChance here, and read more of Mike LaChance's articles here.

 

Thanks for sharing!