Trump Brushes Aside Biden “Lawfare” Plot; Will The Incumbent Survive?

“How about mandating the Supreme Court to intervene at the first sign of political lawfare and stop it in its tracks, and disbar the corrupt DAs doing it?”

    “Bolivia, here we come.”
    So said Paul Gigot, presenter of the (Wall Street) “Journal Editorial Report” TV programme Saturday, referring to the ludicrous court case in New York that purports, for the time being, to prove that former-president Trump is a felon. 

    Gigot was referring to the fascist nature of the Democratic Party’s pursuit of former President Trump, as it seeks to derail his candidacy for the November 5 election because it knows it will lose to him at the polls. Now that the Democrats have been so brazen and desperate as to use this “lawfare” to bring down a presidential candidate, the need for reform is even more urgent. Of this more later, but surely, at the first hint of District Attorney political bias, its ease of implementation and devasting consequences for the innocent and America’s political process, an early route directly to the Supreme Court must be opened. 

    Opinion polls taken after the New York verdict suggest Trump is even more likely to win the November 5 presidential election. Expect the Democrats, their plan to destroy Trump failing, to dump Joe Biden at the upcoming convention August 19/22 in Chicago. 

    “Lawfare” is a pure third-world Bolivia-style fascist tactic being undertaken by the Democrats to deny the democratic rights of voters. This aspect of the U.S. justice system has been in dire need of reform for years. Lawfare has typically been used by Democrats to attack rich conservatives or causes they don’t like. Think former Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black or disputer of the climate change conventional wisdom, Mark Steyn.

     DAs are often voted in and politically motivated, and in heavily democrat voting areas it’s easy to manipulate grand juries into indicting the innocent, and easy to do the same in court with compliant juries. Usually, these corrupt DAs are overturned by appeals courts and the victim’s innocence proclaimed. But by then careers have been ruined, reputations besmirched, and bankruptcy induced. The declaration of innocence might bring a sigh of relief to victims, but by then everything has been destroyed. Black has recovered from his time in jail, but Mark Steyn still can’t get justice. 

    (The system in Britain, where the decision to prosecute is taken by a  centralized bureaucrat, and the police determine who to investigate and arrest, doesn’t seem open to political corruption).

    Soros Billions
    Now these corrupt U.S. DAs, with election campaigns often funded by Soros billions, are gearing up to attack Trump. The New York case last week was so clearly politically inspired and weak that even the hard-left New York Times declared it was a bit flimsy, as did the relentlessly corrupt Washington Post. Even the wringing wet “The Economist” said the prosecution was “wrong-headed and counter-productive”, in the sense that Democrats thought they could derail Trump. In fact it has done the reverse. 

     For Trump watchers in the U.K., this whole process was mystifying. Not surprising really when the BBC’s Any Questions’ panel apparently didn’t mention the word “lawfare” once last Friday when this question came up. Even Spectator editor Fraser Nelson sounded half-hearted in his support for Trump (his magazine, which I’ve read every week since 1964) even though the Spectator has been excellent in its reporting of this issue. (Nelson might be fearing for this job after this).

    Koenssberg’s ignorance 
    Much of Britain’s mainstream media can’t be bothered to explain the concept. The BBC’s Laura Koenssberg interviewed one of Trump’s lawyers Sunday, and still didn’t get the message. The lawyer was terrific, showing no mercy for Koenssberg’s ignorance. No surprise, given Sarah Smith’s appallingly biased reporting for the BBC from New York.

     There are other lawfare suits remaining against Trump. There is the election interference trial in Georgia, that purports to suggest any politician calling for a recount after an election is somehow racketeering. Then there’s the January 6 trial orchestrated by U.S. attorney-general Merrick Garland’s special prosecutor Jack Smith. Smith has form in trying to target politicians by twisting existing laws into doing things never intended by legislators. His tactic of identifying enemies then finding a law to destroy them, has already been thrown out by the Supreme Court. Just for the record prosecutors should act when crimes have been committed, not the other way around. 

    Most preposterous
    The most preposterous case of all is the mishandling of classified documents case. 

     Trump said after the New York “guilty” verdict, he would fight to end this “lawfare” weapon. If the practice isn’t ended, l expect Republican DAs to launch similar suits against Democrats. That would mean national chaos. I’m no lawyer or U.S. constitutional expert, but serious and urgent action must be taken. How about mandating the Supreme Court to intervene at the first sign of political lawfare and stop it in its tracks, and disbar the corrupt DAs doing it? 

    Andrew Neil, in a column in Saturday’s Daily Mail, came up with a horrifying scenario. What if Trump is forced to stand down, Biden wins, and then the appeals process declares Trump innocent, which of course it will. Tin hats at the ready?  

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Responses to Trump Brushes Aside Biden “Lawfare” Plot; Will The Incumbent Survive?

  1. Thomas O'Donovan June 8, 2024 at 5:41 am #

    Well done Neil. I love the term ,’lawfare’
    The only outright winner is Stormy, pocketing muchas dollars and a possible Speilberg directed film on the cards.’ Saving private Ryan’s ,eat your heart out.

  2. Terence Barker June 9, 2024 at 8:01 am #

    Not one iota of specific evidence written here. Just the usual generalised rant that catches attention but fails to provide anything concrete, eg how can you manipulate juries ito make them compliant with a political conspiracy! We do know that Trump put his people into the Supreme Court for political reasons surely that fits the bill to define your term – lawfare.

  3. Neil Winton June 9, 2024 at 9:58 am #

    You’ve got to pay attention Terry. My blog said that even the NYTimes, Washington Post and Economist all reckoned the whole business was dodgy. That’s because it was. If you thought about that for a moment, doesn’t that seem significant? The prosecutor, an elected democrat, campaigned on getting Trump, on whatever case he could create. (Like the case in Georgia, the Jan7 one and the documents case) The NYK bloke used a minor misdemeanor charge which had lapsed because of the statute of limitations and turned it into a phoney federal one which wouldn’t have time-expired (if it stood up, which it won’t). That’s why it was that even lefties know it’s dodgy. It will be overturned by the appeals process. But the Dems will be happy. In true fascist style they try and derail their political opponents, especially the ones they know they can’t beat, using corrupt lawyers who manipulate the law. Dems used this to try and cripple the Trump campaign by stopping him travelling around. And costing it shedloads of money. End result? A more popular Trump swamped with money from small donations. If you google Jack Smith you’ll see he has form in the lawfare business, having one case killed 9-0 – including the lefties on the Supreme Court. Using the Supreme Court as an example of lawfare is nonsense.
    I hope the NHS is making good on the damage they did to you. Can you sue the bastards that did it to you?

Leave a Reply