« First « Previous Comments 140 - 146 of 146 Search these comments
Lawfare’s aim is to pervert due process, to use officers of the courts to act unfairly and unjustly in the name of the law, and thus, under color of law.
This is exactly what you saw in the several cases brought against Mr. Trump in New York State in 2024, a three-ring circus of process-abuse engineered by the “Joe Biden” White House, coordinated with Merrick Garland’s DOJ (through Deputy AG Lisa Monaco), with assists from NY AG Letitia James and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Ditto the RICO case attempted in Atlanta under Fulton County DA Fani Willis, a spectacular botch. And ditto, the cases brought under Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida and DC, also badly botched.
The slovenly ineptitude of these cases was really something to behold, including the sordid romantic complications around Fani Willis and her chosen chief prosecutor, “boyfriend” Nathan Wade, a divorce lawyer with no experience in criminal law. Throw in the disgraceful, self-conflicted antics of the Judges Kaplan, Engoron, and Merchan in the New York cases, and the oafish conduct of Jack Smith and his assistants in Florida and DC — and what you get is a demonstration of how crude an instrument sheer lying actually is in the practice of law, and how easily it breaks against the people using it.
Some of these characters are just now coming to grief: Letitia James faces a DOJ action on depriving Mr. Trump’s rights, and SC Jack Smith is under active FBI investigation for evidence tampering and other crimes of process abuse. It would be fitting for all the prosecutors and the three judges in the New York cases to face similar inquiries.
The phrase under color of law establishes liability for abuse of power for officials vested with the terrible authority for upending people’s lives. The phrase “deprivation of rights” appears explicitly in federal statutes primarily focused on holding government officials and others acting with apparent legal authority accountable for willfully violating an individual’s constitutional or legal rights. The most relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. § 242, which directly criminalizes such conduct. Additional statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 250, 18 U.S.C. § 2243, and 18 U.S.C. § 2244. That’s where all this is going, even if all that’s coming out of the DOJ and FBI for the moment is that ominous silence.
> While you were partying (crying about antisemitism), Rachel Bovard was studying the blade (focusing on real problems like full spectrum lawfare pointed at Trump). Funny name for a lawfare op, btw.
I literally don’t care who Tucker had on his podcast. Joe Biden’s government tried to judicially assault us all out of existence, and was very close to doing it.
> Biglaw firms are no longer going after Trump.
Biglaw let leftist impact litigators rely on their cohorts of young liberal associates looking for a break from securities litigation to help with the big cases. In the end this was a force-multiplier for the legal left, and one of its main structural advantages. It seems to be diminishing.
« First « Previous Comments 140 - 146 of 146 Search these comments
We've stayed away from that sort of stuff here in the States (charging presidents and former presidents with crimes). Seems like the political establishment might do away with that as to curtail other businessmen from encroaching on their turf.
I say the Deplorables fight back.
Texas already threw down a gauntlet by arresting illegals for child endangerment. The Texas AG could say that he's looking into criminal charges for conspiracy to commit child endangerment. It's pretty apparent that Biden's policies are driving unaccompanied minors to cross the border so bring charges versus Biden and those making those policies. It would certainly send a chill down DC's spine.
I am interested to hear what other charges members of Patrick.net can think of to bring against Biden & co.