Biden’s ‘lawfare’ against Trump erodes trust in justice

On a humid Tuesday in February, a 42-year-old Harvard Kennedy School graduate and former economics professor found himself accused of terrorism. Surprisingly, his calls for peaceful protest in the previous weeks had sparked the accusation that he was encouraging violence. Leopoldo López had always considered himself an advocate for political change through peaceful and legal means.

But now, prosecutors likened the father of two young children to a Nazi and the president called him a fascist. In a nationwide televised address, that same president called for López to turn himself in. These accusations also had international ramifications. In the address, the president announced the expulsion of three foreign diplomats for allegedly facilitating the protests.

The Biden regime believes America’s future is not for the American people to decide. It’s for Joe Biden (and his handlers) to decide.

In response to the expulsion of diplomats, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called Venezuelan President Maduro’s accusation that U.S. diplomats facilitated the protest “baseless and false.” These events took place in 2014 in Caracas, Venezuela — an actual banana republic — but you might think this sounds like the United States in the 2020s.

López's protest was intended to call for the removal of President Maduro through constitutional and democratic means, such as a recall referendum. The protests turned violent after López was arrested. While he was behind bars and unable to communicate publicly, the Venezuelan government blamed López for the violence.

The accusations against him should sound absurdly recognizable. According to the journal Foreign Policy:

The star witness for the government was a linguistics professor named Rosa Amelia Asuaje, who claimed López had used “subliminal” messages in his speeches and writings which called for violence. But when cross-examined by the defense, Asuaje recanted, stating that “López’s messages are not subliminal; they are clear, direct, and specific. They call for non-violence. There was never a call to violence by López.”

Not even one. Sound familiar?

Regarding the accusations that the United States had anything to do with the protests, Psaki went on to say, “As we have long said, Venezuela’s political future is for the Venezuelan people to decide. We urge their government to engage all parties in meaningful dialogue.” I find it interesting that Psaki, speaking for the Obama-Biden administration, said that the future of a nation is for its people to decide, presumably through the electoral process. That was what López was encouraging!

Fast forward to November 9, 2022, the day after the midterm elections, when Joe Biden, addressing the possibility of former President Donald Trump running again, said, “We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power, if he does run, making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next president again [sic].”

Keep in mind that Biden’s statement preceded the no-holds-barred lawfare campaign that was unleashed against President Trump. Two things are clear from that statement. First, the Biden regime believes America’s future is not for the American people to decide. It’s for Joe Biden (and his handlers) to decide. Second, the entire purpose of the Biden regime’s lawfare against President Trump is to prevent his return to office. There’s no question about it. Joe Biden himself specifically acknowledged that as the intent.

But one thing is less than clear. The lawyer in me can’t help but wonder what Biden meant in this context when using the word “legitimate”? Nothing about the prosecution of Trump seems like it can be lumped in with “legitimate efforts” “under ... our Constitution.”

The Leopoldo López example in Venezuela is just one example of many indicating that President Biden and key members of his administration know what they’re doing to the country. They know it reflects many hallmark characteristics of a banana republic. They’re intimately familiar with how business operates in illegitimate, despotic regimes. As we say in Utah, “This isn’t their first rodeo.”

Less than one week after Biden’s statement, on November 15, 2022, President Trump announced his intention to run again in 2024. This was seemingly the trigger the Biden regime had been waiting for to launch its nuclear lawfare initiative.

Three days later, three significant events occurred in each of the prosecutions of Donald Trump, demonstrating a coordinated effort to obstruct Trump’s return to power.

First, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the U.S. Department of Justice’s cases against Trump. Then, Nathan Wade, one of the top Fulton County Trump prosecutors, had eight hours of meetings at the White House, signaling a high level of cooperation. And finally, Matthew Colangelo left his prominent position as the number three at the DOJ to join Alvin Bragg’s office in New York City to help lead Bragg’s witch hunt against Trump. What a grand coincidence that these things happened on the same day!

These actions, meticulously detailed by BreitbartNews reporter Bradley Jaye, underscore a deliberate strategy to block Trump’s return to power using constitutional pretenses.

What this means

I suspect that many Americans find the Trump prosecutions shocking for the same reason that I do. These prosecutions lack any regard for prudence and care for the stability of our nation. For the first time in American history, a president has brought criminal charges against his leading political opponent, a former president. Leaders motivated by what’s in the best interests of our country would depart from such precedent only if the cases were legally airtight, watertight, and patently necessary in a way that was obvious to the public. A true statesman would recognize that this dangerous precedent could completely undermine the public’s faith in our legal and political systems. A true statesman would take such steps only if unambiguously compelled to do so by the circumstances — and even then, reluctantly.

The Biden regime, on the other hand, seems eager to “get Trump,” regardless of the societal cost. Rather than proceeding only with patently compelling charges, each of the prosecutions has had to manipulate statutes, interpret the law broadly, and engage in legal creativity to target Trump. This reflects a reckless disregard for the stability of our political system.

'Rule of law' means whatever they say it means. They have the power; therefore, they are the law.

Such a manipulative prosecution would be bad enough under ordinary circumstances. But in this case, the intention of the prosecution, as indicated by Biden’s statement on November 9, 2022, is to undermine the will of the voters. This puts the electorate and elected officials on unequal footing. The Biden regime is using the power of the executive branch to thwart and actively counteract the will of voters.

This calls into question the legitimacy of so many actions taken by the Biden administration. For if the Biden regime was unconcerned with winning re-election based on popular will, why would the regime concern itself with popular will on any other matter? This, in turn, uproots the idea that the execution of our laws is based in the law as enacted by legislators acting on the will of the people. In other words, in the minds of the populace, this threatens the rule of law.

Legendary political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa described the problem with such regimes as this, “Caesarism ... destroyed the balance of Rome’s mixed or republican constitution by destroying the senate and patrician class. It thereby destroyed all rule of law, overthrowing all republican equality between government and the governed within Rome.” In our present case, the Biden regime is “overthrowing republican equality between government and the governed” by explicitly undermining the will of voters and manipulating the judicial system to that end. Jaffa goes on to say, “Yet Caesarism presented itself as the most democratic of regimes, because Caesar’s power was ostensibly exercised entirely for the benefit of the people.”

The good news is that the increase in President Trump’s poll numbers and fundraising in response to each step of the prosecution shows that much of the country sees right through it. Still, we are left wondering what powerful people with such reckless disregard for our political and judicial systems will do next.

What comes next

In a case of irony that could inspire an Alanis Morissette song, the Democrats have framed each indictment and conviction of Donald Trump as a matter of upholding the “rule of law.” In the days after the New York Trump conviction, I noticed this phrasing was used consistently by a wide number of Democrat politicians and leftist pundits in response to Alvin Bragg’s conviction of President Trump. Here are a few examples:

My longtime Senate colleague Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) posted on X, “As I’ve said all along: no one is above the law—not even a former president. Consistent with the rule of law, a jury of his peers found the former president guilty on all counts.”

Also on X, another colleague, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), posted, “It’s simple. He broke the law. He got caught. He got convicted. Is this crime as serious as the others he committed? No. But the rule of law applies to everyone. And this won’t be the last conviction.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) posted on X, “Donald Trump is a convicted felon. This verdict is not a win for any single person. It’s a win for an idea. The idea that we all follow the same rules. The rule of law won today.”

These are just a few examples of many leftists using this exact phrase, “rule of law.” Did they have some sort of strategy meeting to decide to all post the same thing on X? Conservatives are often tempted to “own the libs” by pointing the hypocrisy of such statements. While it may be fun to own the libs, it is unwise to underestimate their contortions of language.

Each time the Supreme Court overturns any aspect of a prosecution against President Trump, leftists will attack the court as illegitimate. They’re already laying the groundwork.

The question we must ask is what do they mean by “rule of law”? Understand, the ideology of progressivism is founded in relativism. To them, words have no objective meaning, only the subjective meaning they intend in their use of the phrase. All of this to say, “rule of law” means whatever they say it means. They have the power; therefore, they are the law. To them, the “rule of law” means the rule of those with power. They may be using the phrase to refer to their act of dressing these prosecutions in the norms of our legal system, but on another level, what they mean is that Donald Trump is not above their power.

Sanctimonious use of the phrase “rule of law” allows them to characterize anyone who disagrees with or even questions the verdict or indictments as opposing the rule of law. Take for instance my Republican colleague from Maine, Sen. Susan Collins. She is perhaps the most moderate member of the Republican Senate conference. Anyone who has met her would describe her as professional and competent. In response to the verdict in the New York case against President Trump, Collins said, “The district attorney brought these charges because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specific criminal conduct.”

This was a reasonable noninflammatory statement. In response, on her MSNBC show, Jen Psaki accused Collins of “undermining faith in our justice system,” endangering the people serving in the justice system, and “fueling the potential for violence.” Just as with Leopoldo López in Venezuela, anything the regime disagrees with can be characterized as instigating violence. This is not to pick on Psaki in particular. I’m using her as an example because we know from earlier that Psaki is intimately familiar with how business is done in banana republics. She knew what she was doing here.

In that same segment, Psaki accused the entire Republican Party of undermining the rule of law, saying, “This is a party that once prided itself on being ‘defenders of the law.’ Law and order was basically their campaign refrain.” She went on to say, “It's clear that Trump is not going to end this assault on the rule of law anytime soon.”

Most interestingly, in that very same segment, Psaki played a clip of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in which he said something undeniably true: “I do believe the Supreme Court should step in, obviously, this is totally unprecedented. And it’s dangerous to our system. I think that the justices on the court, I know many of them personally, I think they’re deeply concerned about that as we are. So, I think they’ll set this straight.”

Psaki attacked Johnson for saying this, not on the merits of his argument that the conviction of Trump is unprecedented and dangerous for our system, but by mischaracterizing his statement. She said, “So Speaker Mike Johnson is essentially saying there — and I think this is so important to repeat — ‘I know these guys. They’re on our team. They’ll quote, set things straight.’” The message she’s sending here is that Supreme Court justices are on the same team as Republican politicians and that team, according to her, is the anti-rule-of-law team.

Not only are they seeking to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with them as opposing the rule of law, they are actively characterizing any higher court who may disagree on the legal merits as partisans who oppose the rule of law. Each time the Supreme Court overturns any aspect of a prosecution against President Trump, leftists will attack the court as illegitimate. They’re already laying the groundwork.

Paul Morigi/Stringer/Getty Images

Assailing the judiciary

This is part of a larger pattern. The left has systematically attacked conservative Supreme Court justices for years. Most recently, the left has attacked Justice Samuel Alito because his wife briefly flew an upside-down U.S. flag at their Virginia home and an Appeal to Heaven flag at their New Jersey home. Democrats insisted this was evidence that Alito should recuse himself from January 6-related cases pending before the court. Similarly, the left has called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from January 6-related cases because his wife, Ginny, in her professional career as a conservative activist, was involved in exploring the irregularities of the 2020 election.

Undoubtedly, the left will repeat these calls for recusal anytime a case related to the Trump prosecution is pending before the court. I expect they will also call for Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett to recuse themselves from any Trump prosecution-related cases on the grounds that they were each appointed by the 45th president.

Fortunately, the decision to recuse rests with each individual justice. Still, the left will accuse each of them of not respecting the rule of law and declare any ruling that undermines the left's prosecution of Trump as illegitimate.

If Democrats have complete political power, they will go to extreme lengths to destroy the court and the judicial system.

Let’s go back to Biden’s November 9, 2022, statement where he made that point that he will make sure “under legitimate efforts of our Constitution” that Trump doesn’t become president again. This is emblematic of the mentality of the people in Biden's regime. Anything they do is legitimate in their minds. Anything that stands in their way is illegitimate. As such, it’s likely that leftists will not only call rulings that undermine their effort to prosecute Trump illegitimate, but they will also likely declare that the Supreme Court itself is illegitimate.

In this scenario, Democrat lawmakers will call for reforms to the Supreme Court, impeachment of justices, and court packing. For this reason, we must all hope and pray that Democrats do not win the White House and both chambers of Congress in November. If they have complete political power, they will go to extreme lengths to destroy the court and the judicial system.

In fact, the left is already far down this path. In response to the court’s July 1 ruling in the Trump immunity case acknowledging that a president has absolute immunity for actions stemming from his core constitutional authority and presumed immunity from prosecution for all other official actions, Democrats attacked and threatened the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blasted the ruling, saying, “This disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS — which is comprised of 3 justices appointed by Trump himself — enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law. It undermines SCOTUS's credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today.” In other words, Schumer is arguing that the court is illegitimate because three justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett) were appointed by Trump.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) went even further. “The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people,” he said in a statement. “They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity. House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.”

Rather than provide any argument against the opinion of the court, Jeffries merely attacked the justices as “far right” and threatened to legislate in a way to bring them “into compliance with the Constitution.” Based on the lack of substance to Jeffries’ argument, compliance with the Constitution can be fairly interpreted as compliance with what Democrats want.

They’ve already signaled their intentions for the reforms to the Supreme Court that Jeffries described. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have already introduced legislation that would subject justices to onerous recusal requirements.

In just the last few weeks, on June 12, 2024, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin attempted to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023. This legislation, among other things, would allow anyone to file a complaint against a Supreme Court justice that would then be adjudicated by a panel of judges. It would require any group — including nonprofit conservative groups — filing an amicus brief to disclose anyone who has donated to that group, which would expose those donors to harassment by the left. And it would establish a requirement for justices to recuse themselves in certain instances. This bill could take conservative justices and lawyers off the playing field in important cases such as those resulting from the prosecution of President Trump.

Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, John Kennedy, and I blocked the passage of this bill on the Senate floor. I’m sure any of my Republican colleagues would have done the same. Thankfully, the Senate filibuster, which would require 60 votes to pass such legislation, remains in place for now, preventing this type of bill from passing.

But, with only a two-seat Republican majority in the House at the time of this writing, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where, by some unfortunate accident, Democrats obtain a majority. Combined with their control of the Senate and the White House, Democrats could nuke the filibuster and impose such a law before the November election.

Anyone who dares dissent from this action would be labeled an opponent of the so-called rule of law and a threat to “our democracy” as Democrats are fond of calling our constitutional republic. Much like Leopoldo López in Venezuela, those of us who would stand against it would be accused of instigating violence. They’re already accusing us of that.

This isn’t conspiratorial “doomerism.” These are just the facts about the situation in which we find ourselves. This could spin out of control quite easily. While we will all pray and do everything that we can to ensure that President Trump returns to the White House through a fair election, we can’t put all our eggs in one basket. The stakes are too high. We must win a majority in the Senate.

Understanding the situation

The Democrats' strategy seems to be unfolding in a series of steps:

1. Frame their efforts in the Trump prosecution as upholding the so-called “rule of law.”

2. Portray anyone on the right who disagrees with the verdict as opposing the “rule of law.”

3. Accuse conservative justices of not respecting the “rule of law” for not recusing themselves and for overturning Trump convictions.

4. Declare the Supreme Court illegitimate for not upholding the “rule of law,” leading to calls for impeachment, court packing, etc.

5. Label anyone who disagrees with their actions in the name of the “rule of law” as a threat to “our democracy.”

The Democrats have already begun attacking the Supreme Court, targeting Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. They aim to sow doubt about the court’s impartiality and integrity. These attacks undermine the court’s credibility and prepare the ground for potential court packing or impeachment efforts. Their ultimate goal is to lock conservatives out of the White House, maintain long-term control over key institutions, and prevent conservative influence in the nation’s highest court.

When Biden refers to “legitimate efforts of the Constitution,” he aligns with the left's interpretation of legitimacy. Should lawfare against Trump succeed, the GOP-controlled Senate would be the last significant obstacle in the left's path to achieving these aims. This alignment underscores the Democrats’ intention to reshape the political and legal landscape in their favor.

A Republican-controlled Senate may stand as the last line of defense against potential efforts by the Democrats to impeach Supreme Court justices and pack the court. If Trump loses the election, the Democrats will intensify their efforts to reshape the judiciary to maintain long-term political dominance.

A Republican Senate could block such attempts, preserving the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court. This balance of power is crucial in preventing one party from wielding disproportionate influence over the nation’s highest judicial body, thus maintaining the checks and balances essential to our republic. I explain the profound risks presented by court packing in my 2022 book, “Saving Nine: The Fight Against the Left’s Audacious Plan to Pack the Supreme Court and Destroy American Liberty.”

The prosecution of Donald Trump by the Democrats is a calculated move to destabilize the nation by undermining trust in political and judicial systems. This strategy, cloaked in the rhetoric of the “rule of law,” risks undermining the very principles of democracy they claim to defend.

The future of America hangs in the balance as these legal battles unfold. The outcome will determine not only the next four years but also the integrity of the nation's Madisonian institutions. As the Democrats continue their calculated destabilization, it is imperative to recognize the long-term consequences for national stability and the rule of law.