Lawfare against Trump: Who will be held accountable?

A nagging question has been bothering many for the last year. Let’s say Trump beats all or most of the 93 felony charges lodged against him by his enemies. Who or what will hold these activist Democrats accountable for the damage they’ve done to Trump personally and attempting one of the largest and most organized voter-suppression conspiracies of all time? When your detractors use the law in a way that the Supremes, in a 9-0 decision, rebuff Colorado’s attempt to disenfranchise Trump along with another 10 states that either have or were in the process of doing so, what’s your remedy? Remember, Trump has more cases hanging over his head.

Review the following issues that, like most things, are unique to Trump in American jurisprudence:

  1. The concept and application of lawfare
  2. Multi-jurisdiction coordination
  3. Bolsterism
  4. The convoluted idea of Democratic voter suppression.

The term lawfare is not new. Lawfare is a well-understood term in the field of international relations. Recently, however, lawfare has taken on a different meaning: The strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent.

What is currently known or will be shortly is that there has been ongoing coordination between state and federal prosecutors and the Biden administration to destroy Trump. This kind of coordination is unprecedented in scale and scope. With multiple civil and criminal actions focused on a single individual, perhaps no one in history has experienced the pressure that Donald Trump is under. It is highly suspicious that so many of these actions were launched so close to the election. One might suspect a high degree of coordination was involved, given that so many disparate actions simultaneously came together. This is bolstered by the statements of various prosecutors, attorneys general and political surrogates up to and including the president’s press secretary, who not so adroitly drop bombs regularly.

Donald Trump’s civil rights are being violated on a scale heretofore never experienced by any other American. Are there any legal remedies to make him whole? Additionally, Trump’s ability to win a second term as president has been disrupted by what amounts to an organized process that, to my mind, is a conspiracy, not unlike what he has been accused of engaging in Georgia, the consequences of which have knock-on effects:

  • The failed attempt to deny Trump the ability to be on the ballot this November.
  • After Trump successfully beat his opponents on the ballot issue, Rep. Jamie Raskin, almost contemporaneously with the Supreme Court 9-0 smackdown decision, said he didn’t want to “pronounce” anything about what could happen next: “My initial reading suggests that they say that Congress must act … to pass a statute.” The Democrats aren’t giving up; nothing will stop them. Democracy is a word they throw around as it suits them, but in the end, democracy only exists when Democrats say it does.
  • Another strategy waged against Trump is to suck up his time and resources, preventing him from running the best campaign he can. We certainly see how Trump must juggle his schedule and pay tens of millions to the largest group of lawyers working for a single client ever, all by design. If that were not bad enough, look at the recent decision in New York where Trump must come up with at least $450 million in a matter of days for a victimless crime that no one’s ever faced previously – a special crime for a special person. A quick review of Judge Arthur Engoron’s decisions and demeanor should inform anyone that there’s fundamental unfairness on display by an activist judge who hates Trump. Between the state’s AG, who sat in court each day and campaigned on bringing Trump down, law scholars will look at this case for years as an example of how an American kangaroo court functioned to subvert an individual’s rights for political purposes – lawfare on display.
  • There is a precept in law called Bolstering. Bolstering means to build up or support. Bolstering testimony is improper when it relates to the witness’s truthfulness on a specific occasion and when the foundational requirements of evidentiary rules are not met. We see frequent examples in the courtroom and the press that contradict the rule of law. Attacks on Trump have become self-referencing between different court proceedings. Trump is frequently quoted, and his words are twisted to construe the worst possible meaning. “I will be a dictator on day one” is a good example that is widely reported. Except Trump is misquoted by not allowing for the full quote: “No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”
  • It is striking that those who protest the loudest on the imminent loss of democracy are themselves trying to subvert it the most. Trump was never tried or convicted as an insurrectionist. Yet, Democrats spout with aplomb that he is one and should not be allowed on the ballot. The concept of due process appears to be foreign to progressive political leaders. Unbelievable!

Democrats are fairly chomping at the bit to get Trump before a Washington, D.C., jury. Progressives know he has virtually zero chance of getting a fair trial there. Read activist Democrat lawyer Marc Elias veritably promise Trump a swift and speedy hanging! A jury of your peers in D.C.! Only 1,274 votes were cast in the Republican primary held in a city of 700,000. Washington Dems can’t keep a straight face as they preen before reporters reminding them of their 99% conviction rate; that’s not a typo! Does that even seem possible to you?

Fundamental fairness dictates that former President Trump be reimbursed for all his costs of defending himself. And those who contrived to deprive him of his life, reputation and wealth should meet the same fate they wished on him.

Legal scholars I have spoken with see that the collusion between government officials in Congress, the Justice Department and state law enforcement conspired to defraud Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed right to choose their next president. This is true whether Trump is acquitted or convicted of pending indictments or civil actions. Effectively, any action his enemies have launched, successful or not, is the fruit of the poisonous tree and should nullify all actions against him. Fani Willis’ charge of RICO violations should be visited like some biblical plague against all who conspired against the American people.

God bless America.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts