What irregularities run across the legal actions against Trump?
(Trump Versus the Hive, Part 27)
What irregularities run across the legal actions against Trump?
In identifying the markers of ideological motivation in the Trump prosecutions, we may ask, “What are the irregularities?”:
1. The DOJ affirmed immunity for Trump statements made while in Office regarding E. Jean Carroll, then changed its mind and opposed immunity.
2. As no former president has ever been prosecuted, each of these prosecutions crosses a new line.
3. As no leading presidential candidate has ever been prosecuted, each prosecution crosses a new line for that reason also.
4. Each of these cases raises substantial risk of election interference, and each additional case increasingly so.
5. Each of these cases is based on novel and untested interpretation or application of the law, or both, making convictions unlikely.
6. Each case applies arcane, archaic, or obscure laws with no legislative intent for such situations[1] (Ex: the Georgia D.A. has done 12,000 indictments, but only 11 RICO).
7. Thus, each of these cases has great uncertainty regarding its outcome, which typically deters prosecution, yet each was brought anyway.
8. Much of these cases rely on a difficult or impossible to prove state of mind of the former President.
9. Such “impossible” facts are best proven to a biased jury, which all prosecutions apparently rely on.
10. The prosecutions are for acts similar to what politicians have done previously without prosecution, Ex: Bush v. Gore challenges, Ex: Alternate electors in Hawaii commended by the overseeing judge, Ex: Objections to legitimacy of Trump’s election by Democrats, Ex: Retention of documents by others.
11. The legality of “special counsels” per DOJ regulations is untested at the Supreme Court because the “independent” counsel Congressional statute expired.
12. The prosecutions may be in violation of prosecutorial guidelines, regulations, and 5th Amendment Due Process, proceeding anyway in uncharted legal waters without likelihood of conviction, that prosecutors normally wouldn’t risk.
13. The resources spent on these prosecutions is unlimited, many times typical prosecutions, not financially justifiable for other defendants.
14. Jack Smith was able to receive evidence, before the Jan. 6th committee may have deleted (“failed to archive”) large numbers of files, preventing access to same evidence by Defense.[2] For potentially exculpatory evidence to have been destroyed after prosecution had opportunity to gather evidence would typically make prosecution improper.
15. Attorney-client privilege, which is virtually never pierced, is sought to be pierced in all of these cases. As lawyering is precisely the practice of advising clients regarding things that come close to crimes, piercing the attorney-client privilege is virtually never done for this reason.
16. Case evidence would come substantially from Trump’s own attorneys. Needing to pierce attorney-client privilege to get a conviction requires circular reasoning; you can only get the evidence if the attorney facilitated a crime, and you can only prove a crime if you get the evidence first.
17. The facts occurred while Trump was President and had immunity.
18. Prosecution for such matters was completely unforeseeable, negating the purpose of criminal law, deterrence.
19. The allegations are largely characterizations, and the facts of specific acts are not identifiable or proscribed crimes by themselves.
20. The cases throw a multitude of such by-themselves-innocent facts against the proverbial wall, hoping a case sticks.
21. The areas of law, their interpretation and application are novel and untested, making convictions unlikely.
22. As convictions are likely to be reversed on appeal, prosecutors would not normally bring them.
23. A judge in Pennsylvania has already ruled Trump has immunity regarding his election challenges, thus most prosecutors would not proceed in light of such[3].
24. Prosecutors in one or more cases misrepresented facts and or law in pleadings.
25. All prosecutors wanted trial before 2024 election, the Georgia prosecutor sought trial in months with 19 defendants, something impossible procedurally.
26. All four prosecutions waited three years to file.
27. All four prosecutions only filed after Trump announced his candidacy and became the lead candidate.
28. All four prosecutions were filed only after knowing all the others would be filed.
29. The Justice Department changed the regulations affecting the prosecution of political election crimes after the 2020 election, but before filing charges, affecting the way the Attorney General is involved in the prosecution of election crimes.
30. Some cases attempt to criminalize political speech and political action.
31. Cases are likely to harm the public in many ways.
32. Cases are likely to have a chilling effect on right to counsel and political activity.
33. Cases deter challenge of faulty elections in the future.
34. The statutes and their interpretations are so broad, that arguably the prosecutors are guilty of the same things as the accused.
35. The amount of prosecutions, prosecutorial resources, charges, and legal pressure are enough to destroy even innocent Defendants, violating the 5th Amendment.
36. There is blatant variance of prosecutorial discretion; the Georgia DA indicted all attorneys, and the Special Counsel listed them as unindicted co-conspirators.
37. The Georgia DA’s grand jury also recommended charges against Senator Lindsey Graham, but none were brought, perhaps to keep the focus on Trump, or take attention from long-time, respected politicians taking similar or supportive actions.
38. In all cases, regardless who did what, the focus is getting Trump, foregoing or settling prosecution of all other parties to focus on Trump.
The pattern is blatant. Dozens of separate prosecutorial actions, methods, and circumstances, each one irregular enough to be independently potentially disqualifying of the discretionary decision to prosecute, but here disregarded even when all combined against a single Defendant. In other words, dozens of separate things rarely or never done in any prosecution individually, all appearing in one prosecution. Times four prosecutions. The odds are astronomical.
If a prosecutor 10 years ago told a colleague they intended to prosecute the leading presidential candidate with a case with these problems, they would have laughed them out of the room, accused of obvious political motivation for wanting to prosecute despite all these problems.
Criminal prosecution is typically only undertaken when clear laws are violated, and the alleged perpetrator could foresee what they were doing was criminally prohibited beforehand. Remember, the purpose of criminal law itself is to deter future crimes. So, what is being deterred here - election recounts?
This pattern of atypical aspects of these prosecutions highlights signs of ideological malignancy overriding the decision to prosecute. Prosecutors are taking risks they would personally never take, for example:
- risking cases being thrown out after years of work,
- risking consequences and penalties for malicious prosecution,
- risking lawsuits for prosecutorial abuse,
- using resources they would not otherwise have,
- having media support they would not otherwise have,
- risking interference with the 2024 election,
- risking tainting the credibility of their offices,
…in order to accomplish the end goal of the ideology.
Notice, none of the prosecutors brought charges until the media coordinated and let them all know that the other criminal cases were also being filed.
All four announced they were looking at filing criminal charges and put the message out into the media to gauge the reaction. The Left media reaction was positive, so they all four announced they were indeed filing shortly.
If all of the mainstream media had come back and with one unanimous voice denouncing the prosecution plans saying…
“wait, you can’t prosecute a political opponent. That’s Stalinist Russia! 90% of the American people are against it. If the Democrats allow these prosecutions, they will all be voted out of office next election. America is smarter than that.”
…had this been the mainstream media’s response, no charges would have been filed against Trump. But it wasn’t.
No prosecutor wanted to be the lone wolf prosecuting a president with a weak or bad case, so they all went forward with these unprecedented political prosecutions together, and with media support, just like the power and unaccountability in a mob riot. The hive mind used the Left-leaning media as the coordinator and the purported moral conscience of the prosecutors and judges. Individual prosecutors’ and participants’ risk was minimized in the individual psyche to allow focus on the big picture goal of the collective hive.
This is similar to how the Left media coordinates with politicians on many issues as part of the hive mind. One journalist puts out an article about it, and sees if other journalists join in and create momentum. As remarked by Dan Bongino, regarding potential plans by Democrats to implant Michelle Obama as the candidate for 2024, the media sends out smoke signals, “they don’t need to coordinate it, they all think alike with a hive mind.” In essence, the Left hive mind uses its news media not only to communicate, but to function.
This is how the Democrat hive mind, rather than the voters, decide elections. The media presents an issue or candidate as the proper one, whether it be Biden, or swapping in someone else last minute with no debate nor primary nor Constitutional analysis.
If the Left’s prosecutorial war is allowed to continue against Republicans, every Republican politician could be prosecuted for some random crime. If something should be listed as a campaign, they can be prosecuted for not. If something should not be a campaign contribution, they can be prosecuted if they do list it as such. One item mischaracterized in a multi-million dollar campaign, formerly a minor bookkeeping error, can now be used to keep Republicans off the ballot by Democrats, but not vice-versa.
That collapse of our system harms our democracy far more than document retention or demanding further vote counts.
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/21/special-counsel-digs-obscure-laws-build-cases-agai/
[2] https://www.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2023/08/id935967-Loudermilk-Letter-to-Thompson-6.26.23.pdf
[3] https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4130582-judge-rules-trump-false-election-claims-while-in-office-covered-by-presidential-immunity/