So, I'm going to take a moment and explain Dana Loesch's Trump/Capone comparison in full detail. Not as a defence, but because contrasting what she was trying to say with what she actually said is also hilarious.
The point she says she was making was that the sought after punishment would be proxy for the more serious accusations rather than the proved crimes. This is a reference to Capone being sentenced to 11 years (served 8) for a crime that normally warranted 18-36 months.
So, "they're trying to Al Capone the president" in her video means "they're trying to find guilt of a lesser crime so they can hand down a proxy punishment for the more severe crimes that they can't prove."
Which, you know, is an analogy that's convoluted to the point it borders on deranged. Unless you're playing a game where you're trying to jump off a sinking ship without it looking like you're trying to jump off a sinking ship.
"We need to stand by the President because Liberals are going to treat him very unfairly when he's found guilty of crimes!" is, at best, a very strange sentiment.
if we want more historical parallels: Capone's lawyers were also hilariously incompetent, one basically confessed on his behalf, and they spent most of the trial arguing a non-sequitur defence arguing that he didn't actually owe taxes because he lost so much money gambling.
But, so, yeah, the whole "disproportionate punishment" comparison angle is still hilarious since its still predicated on Trump being found guilty of crimes that he has factually committed.
