The three politically motivated phony indictments of Trump so far
By Rachel Alexander
There are three pending criminal cases against Donald Trump so far, with another one likely to arise in Georgia. Biden-appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump in Florida over allegedly taking classified documents from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. He's charging him over J6 in D.C., and Georgia prosecutors may follow with a similar suit. State prosecutors in New York have charged Trump with fraud over an alleged payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
No one actually believes the formerly most powerful man in the world, who had the top attorneys and advisors surrounding him, would blatantly commit felonies. Everyone knows it's a fishing expedition by politically motivated prosecutors to exploit the left-leaning justice system and take lawfare to a new level вЂ” prosecution.
In the latest indictment, regarding J6, Trump has been charged with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against rights and witness tampering. It essentially repeats the DNC talking points the MSM repeats ad nauseam; that he stoked violence and pretended the election was stolen. The indictment uses language that ignores the fact the country is still incredibly divided over whether election fraud influenced the race, "Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to stay in power."
The prosecution isn't even bothering to assess whether there was fraud or not in the 2020 election, as Trump's Senior Advisor Stephen Miller pointed out. Nor do they care that Rasmussen Reports, one of the most accurate pollsters, found that most voters believe cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential race.
Constitutional law attorney Robert Barnes of the Viva & Barnes legal podcast asserted, "The #TrumpIndictment alleges Trump conspired to deprive people of their right to vote, when it is the indictment itself that is the conspiracy to deprive Americans of their right to vote."
It criminalizes political speech. Trump said during a speech at the South Carolina GOP's Silver Elephant Gala on Saturday, "This means we cannot ever criticize elections, once that happens you have tyranny." Legal scholar Jonathan Turley said the prosecution would "bulldoze" over the First Amendment if successful, pointing out that Smith would need to prove that Trump knew the statements he made about the 2020 election were false. Turley cited the 2012 Supreme Court case, United States v. Alvarez, which found that it's unconstitutional to criminalize lies.
X owner Elon Musk responded "Exactly" to Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon's post quoting Attorney General Robert Jackson, who served in the 1940s. Jackson said the biggest danger from a prosecutor is "that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted." He went on, "It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views." Let's not forget that multiple Democrats challenged the certification of the election after Trump won in 2016, and nothing happened to them.
It's nothing less than what goes in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Defense attorney Harvey Silverglate showed how the average American commits three felonies a day but doesn't know it, since our laws have become so numerous, broad and vague. Multiple prosecutors funded by the taxpayers' unlimited deep pockets for years on a fishing expedition can take down anyone, even the formerly most powerful man in the world.
One of Trump's former legal advisors in 2020, renowned constitutional scholar John Eastman, is reportedly one of the "co-conspirators" named in the complaint. He is currently undergoing a disbarment trial by the State Bar of California, which is widely considered a kangaroo court, conducted by a bar disciplinary judge who contributed to Democrats while sitting on the bench. First Amendment attorney Mark Fitzgibbons observed that the trial so far has had the ironic effect of actually bringing out much of the evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, evidence that judges have refused to admit during election challenge trials.
In regards to the prosecution over Trump bringing classified documents to Mar-a-Lago, the law there is "relatively weak on enforcement elements" according to Turley, and high-profile violations haven't resulted in anyone serving time behind bars, including former CIA director and retired four-star Army general David Petraeus, former FBI Director James Comey and President Bill Clinton's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger stuffed classified materials into his pants and socks in order to remove them. Turley said, "Trump's reported behavior is well short of Berger's."
The New York March indictment was over allegedly falsifying business records, accusing Trump of paying porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 as hush money but fraudulently recording it as legal services for his former attorney Michael Cohen. However, in order to convict Trump, it must be shown that it was a campaign finance violation, when at worst it was merely Trump trying to hide the alleged affair from his wife. Coincidentally, Smith prosecuted former presidential John Edwards over a similar accusation вЂ” involving far more payments вЂ” and got nowhere, with all charges eventually dropped.
There are so many ways a prosecution can be manipulated by law enforcement, prosecutors and judges. A judge gets to decide what information a grand jury sees, making indictments almost meaningless (a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich). A judge controls what jury instructions the jury sees вЂ” which is how a judge got the jury to convict former GOP Congressman Steve Stockman.
I'm so sick and tired of people saying "Trump clearly broke the law." They ignore other interpretations of the law, pretend that all the ways to manipulate our left-wing dominated legal system don't exist, and ignore the many instances throughout world history where officials have abused the justice system to take down political opponents. Democrats have become increasingly attracted to the law in recent years, realizing it provides them with tyrannical power. They now dominate prosecutors' offices, state bars and much of the judiciary. Stop being naive and letting the MSM hide the truth and dictate the narrative about this terrifying new level of lawfare within our justice system.
Rachel Alexander and her brother Andrew are co-Editors of Intellectual Conservative. She has been published in the American Spectator, Townhall.com, Fox News, NewsMax, Accuracy in Media, The Americano, ParcBench, Enter Stage Right and other publications.