The latest lawfare missile lobbed at Donald Trump by his successor and chief political opponent’s Justice Department strikes at our most fundamental rights: To speak freely, petition our government for redress of grievances, and have lawyers to defend us.
The four-count indictment, wherein Special Counsel Jack Smith seeks to have his cake and eat it too by hanging the Capitol Riot around Trump’s neck without charging him for it, is a tool of political warfare masquerading as an instrument of justice.
Let me speak to the case on its merits to illustrate how illegitimate it is.
The premise is that Donald Trump didn’t really believe he lost the 2020 presidential election.
So when he used every available means to contest it – pleading with states to run audits and recounts and pursue allegations of fraud and irregularities, filing lawsuits, preparing alternate slates of electors and seeking to halt the certification of the vote so states could comprehensively review the claims of election issues, while coordinating with lawyers in exhausting every possible remedy – that that effort was fraudulent, a criminal conspiracy.
To make this case, Special Counsel Smith tortures laws having nothing to do with contesting an election that millions of Americans were skeptical of in pursuit of what amount to thought crimes.
Just consider the charges Smith levels at Trump on their face.
One count is for conspiracy against rights – specifically “the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”
Apparently, Smith believes the effort to pursue claims of fraudulent or illegally cast votes – which would dilute and in effect disenfranchise lawful voters – constitutes an assault on voting rights.
Seeking to ensure the integrity of the vote equals conspiring against the vote?
Beyond that, according to the DOJ, this law, Title 18 Section 241 “is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions.”
So it’s totally inapt.
Let’s look at two of the three remaining counts: obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
Know where the underlying law comes from?
It’s part of Sarbanes-Oxley, the legislation passed after the Enron accounting scandal.
Title 18 Section 1512 of the U.S. code, according to the DOJ, deals with “tampering with victims, witnesses or informants.”
Section c, where Trump faces charges, deals with “corruptly” “alter[ing], destroy[ing], mutilat[ing], or conceal[ing] a record, document, or other object…with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or – and this is where Smith is charging Trump, “otherwise obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] any official proceeding.”
Before January 6 this law had never been applied to political protesters.
But the Justice Department shoehorned it to slap Capitol breach defendants with a felony that carries a sentence of up to 20 years.
Judges have been divided on whether this evidence-focused charge can even be applied to political rioters. It may go before the Supreme Court.
To make Smith’s case work, he’d have to link Trump’s words – like cheering on protesters heading to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” to back the legislators objecting to the certification of the election – and actions including authorizing substantially more security before J6 – to show that he owned the Capitol Riot, and that the actions of rioters constituted “corrupt” acts to “obstruct an official proceeding” that he intended to happen.
And note that Smith didn’t charge Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy.
So riddle me this: Given what I just detailed, Smith’s gonna argue that Trump tried to obstruct an official proceeding that constituted his last chance to challenge the 2020 election?
That’s an awful lot of cartwheels necessary to get to the charges he’s seeking.
Finally there’s the lead charge of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
Set aside whether because psychic Jack Smith believes Trump believed he lost – largely based on what officials around Trump were telling him, as if that’s supposed to mean something – that therefore his election challenge was the fraudulent fruit of this poisonous tree.
The Supreme Court spoke on the matter of fraud just months ago. In Ciminelli v. U.S., writing for a unanimous court, Justice Clarence Thomas said this: “the federal fraud statutes
criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests.”
Now the DOJ has also said the law is “designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States.”
Of course, Trump would argue that seeking to ensure the legitimacy of a presidential election by exhausting all possible means was precisely about protecting that integrity.
So given all that, ask yourself, if you were a fair-minded federal prosecutor serving at the pleasure of one president, if you would pursue his predecessor and leading political opponent – for conduct and over issues already addressed by the legal and political processes, including an impeachment – as Jack Smith does.
Would you slap the predecessor and leading opponent with an indictment, as you’ve done before, days after damaging news about the conduct of the current president, stretching and twisting laws, when the crimes are not clear cut, and there’s no precedent – where here the chill over political speech, challenging elections, and providing counsel for challengers, is obvious, all while definitionally interfering in the election?
And ask yourself, if these are the new standards, wouldn’t every party in power be tempted to weaponize the justice system accordingly to punish their political enemies?
We are being desensitized to and witnessing the normalizing of show trials in this country that damage to the fundamental rights of us all, and the integrity of the system itself – under cover of justice.
That’s the real fraud here.
Ben Weingarten
Federalist Senior Contributor; Claremont Institute Fellow
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Is the US looking for a war?
11 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
How future generations could shift US support for Israel
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Why election of European Commission president is so important
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
‘Both completely corrupt’: What Americans think of Biden, Trump
Tuesday
Dr. Frank Luntz
Smith’s Trump indictments damaging the justice system’s credibility
Ben Weingarten
Federalist Senior Contributor; Claremont Institute Fellow
By Straight Arrow News
Former President Donald Trump faces a 45-page indictment from special counsel Jack Smith. The charges claim Trump spread false information about widespread voter fraud in an attempt to sway the 2020 presidential election results. The Trump campaign dismissed the charges as “fake” and questioned the two-year delay in filing.
Straight Arrow News contributor Ben Weingarten explains how the special counsel twists the laws to fit his own agenda and, in Weingarten’s words, Smith is undermining the integrity of the American justice system.
The latest lawfare missile lobbed at Donald Trump by his successor and chief political opponent’s Justice Department strikes at our most fundamental rights: to speak freely, petition our government for redress of grievances and have lawyers to defend.
The four-count indictment, wherein special counsel Jack Smith seeks to have his cake and eat it, too, by hanging the Capitol riot around Trump’s neck without charging him for it is a tool of political warfare masquerading as an instrument of justice.
Let me speak to the case on its merits to illustrate how illegitimate it is. The premise is that Donald Trump didn’t really believe he lost the 2020 presidential election. So when he used every available means to contest it — pleading with states to run audits and recounts and pursue allegations of fraud and irregularities, filing lawsuits, preparing alternate slates of electors and seeking to halt the certification of the vote so states could comprehensively review the claims of election issues, while coordinating with lawyers in exhausting every possible remedy — that that effort was fraudulent, a criminal conspiracy.
To make this case, special counsel Smith tortures laws having nothing to do with contesting an election that millions of Americans were skeptical of, in pursuit of what amount to thought crimes.
The latest lawfare missile lobbed at Donald Trump by his successor and chief political opponent’s Justice Department strikes at our most fundamental rights: To speak freely, petition our government for redress of grievances, and have lawyers to defend us.
The four-count indictment, wherein Special Counsel Jack Smith seeks to have his cake and eat it too by hanging the Capitol Riot around Trump’s neck without charging him for it, is a tool of political warfare masquerading as an instrument of justice.
Let me speak to the case on its merits to illustrate how illegitimate it is.
The premise is that Donald Trump didn’t really believe he lost the 2020 presidential election.
So when he used every available means to contest it – pleading with states to run audits and recounts and pursue allegations of fraud and irregularities, filing lawsuits, preparing alternate slates of electors and seeking to halt the certification of the vote so states could comprehensively review the claims of election issues, while coordinating with lawyers in exhausting every possible remedy – that that effort was fraudulent, a criminal conspiracy.
To make this case, Special Counsel Smith tortures laws having nothing to do with contesting an election that millions of Americans were skeptical of in pursuit of what amount to thought crimes.
Just consider the charges Smith levels at Trump on their face.
One count is for conspiracy against rights – specifically “the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”
Apparently, Smith believes the effort to pursue claims of fraudulent or illegally cast votes – which would dilute and in effect disenfranchise lawful voters – constitutes an assault on voting rights.
Seeking to ensure the integrity of the vote equals conspiring against the vote?
Beyond that, according to the DOJ, this law, Title 18 Section 241 “is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions.”
So it’s totally inapt.
Let’s look at two of the three remaining counts: obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
Know where the underlying law comes from?
It’s part of Sarbanes-Oxley, the legislation passed after the Enron accounting scandal.
Title 18 Section 1512 of the U.S. code, according to the DOJ, deals with “tampering with victims, witnesses or informants.”
Section c, where Trump faces charges, deals with “corruptly” “alter[ing], destroy[ing], mutilat[ing], or conceal[ing] a record, document, or other object…with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or – and this is where Smith is charging Trump, “otherwise obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] any official proceeding.”
Before January 6 this law had never been applied to political protesters.
But the Justice Department shoehorned it to slap Capitol breach defendants with a felony that carries a sentence of up to 20 years.
Judges have been divided on whether this evidence-focused charge can even be applied to political rioters. It may go before the Supreme Court.
To make Smith’s case work, he’d have to link Trump’s words – like cheering on protesters heading to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” to back the legislators objecting to the certification of the election – and actions including authorizing substantially more security before J6 – to show that he owned the Capitol Riot, and that the actions of rioters constituted “corrupt” acts to “obstruct an official proceeding” that he intended to happen.
And note that Smith didn’t charge Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy.
So riddle me this: Given what I just detailed, Smith’s gonna argue that Trump tried to obstruct an official proceeding that constituted his last chance to challenge the 2020 election?
That’s an awful lot of cartwheels necessary to get to the charges he’s seeking.
Finally there’s the lead charge of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
Set aside whether because psychic Jack Smith believes Trump believed he lost – largely based on what officials around Trump were telling him, as if that’s supposed to mean something – that therefore his election challenge was the fraudulent fruit of this poisonous tree.
The Supreme Court spoke on the matter of fraud just months ago. In Ciminelli v. U.S., writing for a unanimous court, Justice Clarence Thomas said this: “the federal fraud statutes
criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests.”
Now the DOJ has also said the law is “designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States.”
Of course, Trump would argue that seeking to ensure the legitimacy of a presidential election by exhausting all possible means was precisely about protecting that integrity.
So given all that, ask yourself, if you were a fair-minded federal prosecutor serving at the pleasure of one president, if you would pursue his predecessor and leading political opponent – for conduct and over issues already addressed by the legal and political processes, including an impeachment – as Jack Smith does.
Would you slap the predecessor and leading opponent with an indictment, as you’ve done before, days after damaging news about the conduct of the current president, stretching and twisting laws, when the crimes are not clear cut, and there’s no precedent – where here the chill over political speech, challenging elections, and providing counsel for challengers, is obvious, all while definitionally interfering in the election?
And ask yourself, if these are the new standards, wouldn’t every party in power be tempted to weaponize the justice system accordingly to punish their political enemies?
We are being desensitized to and witnessing the normalizing of show trials in this country that damage to the fundamental rights of us all, and the integrity of the system itself – under cover of justice.
That’s the real fraud here.
‘Deep State’ failed to protect Trump
The stated mission of the United States Secret Service is to “ensure the safety and security of our protectees.” However, on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, the Secret Service allowed a lone would-be assassin to fire a shot at former President Donald Trump, grazing his ear with a bullet. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned…
Tuesday
The Regime once again meddling in election to hurt Trump
On Tuesday, July 9, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a cybersecurity advisory warning companies about a Russian social media bot farm. U.S. officials told reporters that these Russian bots are targeting U.S. voter groups in key swing states and implied that the goal is to undermine President Joe Biden. Watch the above video as…
Jul 16
Clarence Thomas has it right on presidential immunity case
On July 1, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 majority opinion for Trump v. United States that American presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for actions that fall within their constitutional duties. The ruling asserts that evidence of official criminal acts committed by a president cannot even be presented in any U.S.…
Jul 9
SCOTUS’ Murthy v. Missouri ruling will live in infamy
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the federal government in the Murthy v. Missouri case regarding official communications between the government and social media platforms. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court stated that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to seek an injunction against…
Jul 2
Anti-Trumpers care about power, not democracy
News commentators across the political spectrum — including some contributors here at Straight Arrow News — have warned Americans about Donald Trump’s aspirations to make himself a dictator and effectively end the American republic if he regains power in November. Their warnings cite Trump’s own legal arguments, public statements and past behavior, including the attempted…
Jun 25
Underreported stories from each side
Group accuses Pa. teachers union of illegally using money to back Shapiro’s 2022 campaign
8 sources | 0% from the left
Getty Images
Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’
8 sources | 0% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
Congress still trying to figure out how to reduce wasteful military spending
Watch 2:29
6 hrs ago
US Navy, Air Force making waves with new weapons at RIMPAC
Watch 6:03
6 hrs ago
Israeli PM Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
Watch 2:54
6 hrs ago
Growing US nuclear power resurgence reaches the nation’s heartland
Watch 1:19
6 hrs ago
Beer from the sun, other solar thermal projects get government funding
Watch 2:04
6 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Trump has an excellent opportunity with Black voters
11 hrs ago
Star Parker
Don’t fall for GOP’s cheap racist attacks on Kamala Harris
12 hrs ago
Dr. Rashad Richey
Americans must reject Trump to defend our democracy
Yesterday
Jordan Reid
Why all the changes in European parliamentary governments?
Wednesday
Newt Gingrich