Trump's Lawfare Persecutors Not Immune to Same Fate

Desperate lawfare and other election interference attempts to keep former President Trump in court trials and off campaign trails make a tragic mockery of Democrat claims of concerns regarding his alleged threat to “democracy.”

Ironically, those most responsible for the brazen assaults on fair and equal justice tend to be the very ones who shriek loudest about Trump tyranny should he be chosen through democratic electoral representation processes to again lead our constitutional Republic.

Yes, and they have good reasons to worry that the prosecutorial tactics and precedents they have inflicted on Donald Trump and many of his allied supporters will backlash to themselves.

Take, for example, the presidential immunity issue at the center of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s charges against Trump in the Washington D.C. district court for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the question of whether he must stand trial on allegations he plotted to overturn the 2020 elections after lower courts rejected his claim of immunity because he was president at that time acting on legal counsel advice.

Trump argues that forcing him to stand trial would establish an extortion and blackmail precedent in which future presidents face criminal prosecutions that cloud their ability to lead effectively whereby “the other side would say, ‘If you don’t do something just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner,’”

It therefore requires no stretch of imagination to apply this legitimate fair warning to Joe Biden’s family foreign influence peddling deals.

Smith is also prosecuting a separate federal case in Florida alleging that former President Trump unlawfully kept concealed sensitive government documents after leaving office which he arguably had full authority to do under the Presidential Records Act.

Smith’s charges fly in the face of conclusions of an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Hur confirming that current President Biden illegally held secret documents dating back to 2017, with some of this information shared with a ghostwriter for his memoir.

Unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden isn’t being charged for any crimes here, the remarkable reasoning essentially being that he is too forgetfully feeble-minded to be held accountable in court, but apparently not so much to impair judgment in leading the free world.

SCOTUS meanwhile has additionally agreed to review a Colorado Supreme Court decision striking frontrunner ’24 candidate Trump from the state ballot for “insurrection,” a transparently partisan charge that has never been filed or adjudicated either against himself or any of those involved with the Jan. 6 Capital disturbances.

The final Colorado decision will influence similar eligibility disqualification attempts by Democrat judiciaries of other states, most recently the ruling of an Illinois Cook County judge.

As noted by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justice Elena Kagan, such efforts for individual states to apply a Civil War-era ruling to presidential elections is a very slippery political slope.

Chief Justice John Roberts has warned that if the Colorado ruling is upheld, “some states would then kick other presidential candidates off the ballot, both Republicans and Democrats, and sow chaos in presidential elections.”

"That's a pretty daunting consequence," Roberts said.

Political shenanigans to remove Trump have reached epic comedy through implosion of a Fulton County, Georgia, case brought forth by District Attorney Fani Willis charging Trump and others under RICO legislation applied to organized crime mob figures with attempting to steal some of that state’s 2020 votes from Biden.

As it turns out, Willis is now facing serious corruption charges over evidence she paid her lover $650,000 as an unqualified special prosecutor in the case out of her office vault, some of which was spent on “romantic” vacations they spent together.

A friend and former colleague of Willis testified that her relationship with Wade began before she hired him, contradicting both of their previous statements.

In stark contrast, the state of New York went far out of their way to pursue prosecutorial persecution of Trump in decades old sexual allegations made by Jean Carroll in the mid-'90s.

Although even Carroll herself couldn’t recall the date she claimed an alleged rape had occurred, nor was any such event determined, a Manhattan jury nevertheless ordered Trump to pay her $83 million for sexual abuse and defamation in disclaiming the charges.

Again, regarding ugly New York politics, consider the predictable backfire ramifications of a ruling by Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron ordering Donald Trump and his organization to pay $453 million in damages for purportedly inflating the claimed value of loan property which even the lending institutions have subsequently rebutted.

The suit, representing one of the largest corporate sanctions in New York history, was brought forth by New York Attorney General Letitia James who centrally focused her election campaign on pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul tried to soothe fears of risks to other real estate developers, stating, “New York business people have nothing to worry about [the extraordinary judgement] because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”

As unconvinced investors flee to friendlier red states and communities, the lesson in this and other Trump lawfare is clear.

Yes, as the old adage goes, even a ham sandwich truly can be indicted.

But in doing so, don’t expect a free lunch.

The consequences can come back and bite the instigators where it hurts.