Connect with us


Lawfare, with Trump as target

Lawfare – legal warfare – has taken over the Justice Department. Donald Trump is the most prominent target, but we are all targets.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



The lawfare – meaning legal warfare – against President Donald J. Trump reached a new height last week. Now the United States Attorney General has appointed a special counsel to investigate the allegations that triggered the Mar-A-Lago Raid. This comes on top of attempts to pass a bill of attainder against Trump – and after a legacy media outlet admitted that the Mar-A-Lago Raid was more difference of opinion than anything else. It illustrates the depths to which Trump’s enemies have sunk. And because Trump’s enemies are the people’s enemies, it shows that patriots need to “lawyer up,” collectively if not individually.

The lawfare state, beginning after the election

The lawfare against Trump started a week after the election, even before he dramatically announced his intention to run for President again. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.-1st) introduced a bill to declare Trump ineligible for office per Amendment XIV Section 3.

That Section disqualifies anyone from holding office if he took part in “insurrection or rebellion.” But it also empowers Congress to cancel this “disability” with a two-thirds vote. Mr. Cicilline obviously ignores the Amnesty Act of 1872, which says that no such Amendment XIV disability shall ever again exist. A federal judge already has set the precedent for recognizing this Act in the case of “January Sixers.” Someone tried to disqualify Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.-11th) from the ballot; that judge said no. Legacy media outlets, including The Boston Globe, reacted in editorial outrage.

This article from The Hill implies that Cicilline is trying to disqualify Trump personally through legislation. That would be a bill of attainder – a legislative verdict against someone – which the Constitution forbids. The only other way to accomplish his goal would be to repeal or “clarify” the Amnesty Act of 1872. That would probably require a two-thirds vote. Furthermore the Congressional Research Service found his legislative language “vague.” Section 5 of Amendment XIV gives Congress “the power to enforce, through appropriate legislation, the provisions” of the amendment. But naming a specific person as a target would not qualify. Expect the Trump legal team to seek an immediate injunction if it passes.

The FBI drops the espionage angle

Then, toward the end of last week, The Washington Post carried a story that set at naught the narrative of Trump stealing classified information to sell it to foreign powers.

Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter…

FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.

Now what the Post did not say was that Trump felt those documents held evidence of wrongdoing by that booby-prize collection of intelligence-community and bureaucratic holdovers we call the Deep State. Nor does the Post story explain why the Attorney General gave the order for that Raid.

But the Post story did remove every excuse Merrick Garland had for laying on that Raid. He must be getting desperate. Hence designating a special counsel. Another motive is to give the appearance of objectivity, since, technically, special counsels work independently of the Attorney General’s office.

Reaction to the special counsel

On Friday night The Gateway Pundit carried Trump’s swift and sure reaction.

We cannot let them get away with it… Why is there not a special counsel for them? I’ve done nothing wrong. They’ve been involved in criminal activity…. These people are corrupt and yet they go after the innocent… Millions of pages, they’ve got nothing. You take a look at the fake impeachment hoax and I won. We won. We went through the whole process… Isn’t this sort of double jeopardy? We did so well in a very hostile Congress. I made a perfect phone call… Can you imagine if the call was actually a bad call?…

Why aren’t they investigating all of the presidents who proceeded me? Obama, Clinton, the Bushes… They took documents with them. It is such an unfair situation that is happening. If they are going to investigate me they need to investigate all the others. They have to invade Bill and Hillary’s home… The Bush’s home… We living in a very bad country… Third world countries have their results in the next day… Our borders are wide open… Itf they really wanted to run against me they would say let him run… We’ve done nothing wrong and they’ve committed massive crimes. We are going to restore power to the people… As I’ve said earlier in the week our comeback starts right now…

Larger lawfare concern

Trump might not even be the only target. According to CNBC, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s brief is wider.

One investigation that Smith will handle is currently looking into whether any person, including Trump, unlawfully interfered with the transfer of presidential power following the 2020 election, or the certification of the Electoral College vote in President Joe Biden’s favor on Jan. 6, 2021.

The other DOJ probe is focused on whether Trump broke the law and obstructed justice in connection with his removal of hundreds of documents from the White House, which were shipped to his residence at Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.

The key phrases are “unlawful(ly)” and “broke the law.” At least with a special counsel, the Attorney General may not directly make up law as he goes. Still, the first part of that brief would cover anyone at all who questioned the Election of 2020 results.

And who is Jack Smith, anyway? Jack Posobiec, Charlie Kirk, and The Post Millennial know.

Prior history of lawfare by this Jack Smith

So does Daniel Assange. On Telegram yesterday he pointed this out:

Jack Smith, the prosecutor hired as Special Counsel to determine whether or not to charge Trump for retaining State documents, was appointed to his role at the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s Public Integrity section by then AG Loretta Lynch, who infamously had a tarmac airplane meeting with the Clintons amidst their email scandal in 2015-2016, in which she among others was implicated.

There is nothing organic about their choice.

He was appointed after a huge scandal in which the DOJ was implicated in withholding exculpatory evidence beneficial to the defense in an investigation into then Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.

So the very appointment of Jack Smith taints the investigation with politics. Add to it the attempt at a bill of attainder, and we have no reason to trust this investigation.

Many have suggested that President Trump will inevitably come under indictment once he announces his decision to run for President. Which decision he announced last week. Neither the Republican Establishment nor the Democratic Party can afford to have Trump take office again. Indeed the fear of an investigative apparatus turning against them, likely prompted the top House leadership echelon to step down. (Maybe the FTX implosion prompted that step-down. We don’t know. Yet.)

Moving forward

CNAV has already said the courts were the new conservative theater. We were speaking then of bad judicial precedent and unconstitutional legislation. Now we must look to legal defense, as the enemies of freedom take lawfare to a new level. We see:

  • Bills of attainder (laws declaring individuals to be outlaws),
  • Ex post facto laws (laws punishing conduct that was lawful when it happened),
  • Malicious prosecution, and
  • Selective application of the law.

A free society cannot tolerate such behavior. To quote Jefferson:

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

He was talking about King George III, of course. But his words apply equally to a Chief Executive, nor his Attorney General – and legislative leaders.

To further paraphrase:

In every stage of the abuses and usurpations of power, we have petitioned for redress in the humblest terms. The Biden administration has answered our repeated petitions only by repeated injury.

Nor have we been lacking in attention to our fellow citizens – yes, those who do vote Democratic. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by Congress and some State legislatures to:

  • Prosecute us and our champions maliciously, and
  • Promote further curtailment of everyone’s freedom, experimentation on children, and perhaps even entry into a nuclear war.

We have reminded them of the causes and outcome of the American War for Independence. We have appealed to whatever humanity they still possess. Last, we have asked them politely and sincerely to disavow these abuses and usurpations, before they divide the country irreparably. They, too, have turned deaf ears to the voices of justice and reason. If this continues, we shall then have to propose a National Divorce, with all that that involves.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Click to comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x