Are those the rules? Those are the official rules, now.

It’s okay for AG’s to abuse their power to go after their political opponents because persecuting people for their political views is not a civil rights violation. Just ask Xi, Putin, and Judge Arthur F. Engoron of the New York State Supreme Court.

At the end of the hearing, state Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump — along with his daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr. — to comply with subpoenas and testify under oath in a civil investigation launched by James into suspicious Trump Organization business practices.

Attorney Alina Habba had argued that James was discriminating against Trump over his politics — and that he was part of a “protected class” that should be legally safeguarded from her investigation.

Habba argued that Trump was being discriminated against for his “viewpoint.” 

Engoron responded: “There’s no viewpoint discrimination. I’m just saying there is none.”

When Habba claimed Trump was part of a “protected class,” Engoron responded: “Ah. What protected class is he a member of?”

“His political speech,” Habba replied. “If he was not sitting as a Republican and was not a former president who might run again, this would not be happening. So she is discriminating against him for that.”

The judge and his clerk pointed out that protected classes include race, religion and sex.

“Donald Trump doesn’t fit that model,” Engoron flatly declared. “He’s not being discriminated against based on race, is he? Or religion, is he? He’s not a protected class,” the judge added.

“If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding [of] unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”

There’s a bunch of things wrong here beginning with a judge calling Trump a “bad guy” in a case where no such finding has been reached. But it’s a helpful window into Judge Engoron’s own biases.

Then there’s the ridiculous exchange.

Being a Republican is not a protected class in New York. (It is in California, but good luck getting a judge to rule on viewpoint discrimination.) That said, targeting someone over their politics is indeed viewpoint discrimination. 

And, more fundamentally, an AG targeting a political opponent is not a “discrimination” issue, it’s a fundamental abuse of power that has no place in a free society with a functioning justice system. Trying to lock up people you disagree with because you disagree with them is unlawful at the most basic level.

But if these are the new rules, these are the new rules. 

AG James then need not complain when the FBI raids her home and the NSA taps her phone. These are the rules we play by now. Whoever has the power gets to play Beria’s, “find me the man and I’ll find a charge.”