Episodes 2 & 3: Democrats' Lawfare Strategy To Defeat Trump

Dems’ Lawfare Strategy To Defeat Trump

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on dubious charges should be a wake-up call to patriotic Americans who want to preserve liberty in the U.S. Trump is running on a successful record during his term as president and with pledges to fix the problems caused by the Biden administration while making the U.S. great again. With an abysmal record during his term in office that has most Americans dissatisfied, President Joe Biden and the Dems have produced a nefarious strategy to defeat Trump.

Whether you call it lawfare or weaponization of the legal process, the strategy involves bringing civil and criminal lawsuits against Trump. These legal actions are unprecedented in that they involve questionable claims brought against a former U.S. president. Most of these actions were purposely brought in courts where jury members are likely to support the Dems and dislike Trump. These cases are being advanced by attorneys, prosecutors, and judges supported by the Dems. The cases could have been brought years ago but are moving forward in a presidential election year. None of this lawfare would be happening if Trump were not running for president. The bottom line is that the Dems are using this lawfare to maintain power.

The Dems’ lawfare strategy is intended to do several things. First, to keep Trump in court and off the campaign trail. Second, to drain his campaign of funds that are being used to pay legal fees. Third, to confiscate his personal wealth through astronomical civil judgments and substantial criminal penalties. Fourth, to incarcerate him through convictions in the criminal actions. Fifth, to remove his secret service protection if incarcerated thereby making him a sitting duck for Trump-hating inmates.

Any judgements against or convictions of Trump should be reversed on appeal. But those appeals will not occur until after the election. Below is a summary of the prominent lawfare cases against Trump.

EJC’s civil case for sexual abuse and defamation

In 2023, EJC brough a civil lawsuit against Trump. She claimed that Trump raped her in a New York department store sometime during the 1990s. She did not file a police report. She could not recall the exact date and time of the incident. There were no witnesses. She announced the rape accusation to the public in 2019 when Trump was the sitting U.S. president. Trump denied the accusation and did not recall ever having met EJC.

The case was brought long after New York’s 3-year statute of limitations for sexual assault expired. But in 2022, Dem officials who run New York passed a special law that gave EJC additional time to sue Trump civilly. A major Dem donor helped to pay EJC’s legal fees.

A New York City jury concluded that Trump had sexually assaulted EJC. She then sued him for defamation when he continued to deny her sexual abuse accusations, and for other comments he made about her. He was then found to be liable for the defamation claim. The jury awarded her approximately $80 million on both claims. Her burden of proof on the claims was a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not that the civil wrong occurred). The matter is currently up on appeal. Trump has not paid EJC a penny on the judgment.

New York Attorney General’s civil fraud case

Last year, the New York Attorney General (LJ) brought a civil action against Trump. LJ claimed that Trump fraudulently inflated the value of his properties used as collateral to obtain loans. LJ’s accusations were based on an obscure and little used New York Law.

LJ is a Dem who was elected as AG. She ran for office pledging to get Trump. She received campaign donations from big Dem donors aligned with the Biden administration.

The case was brought despite Trumps provable claims that the appraisals he submitted to get the loans were checked by appraisers for the lenders. The lenders then made loans to Trump based on property values deemed reasonable. The loans were paid in full. Hence, there was no fraud. Moreover, no damage was suffered by the lenders. Experts testified that what Trump did here is standard practice in the lending industry.

Trump was found liable by the Dem judge in the case. The judge awarded a $485 million judgment against Trump and his business. Here again, the burden of proof was on the State of New York by a preponderance of the evidence.

Trump has appealed the judgement. The court and LJ made Trump pay $175 million on a $500 million bond before he could file his appeal. LJ has threatened to seize Trump’s assets for payment of the judgment. She also wants to prevent his business from operating in New York. Trump’s appeal puts all this on hold.

New York’s economy has still not recovered from the 2020 COVID lockdowns/shutdowns and rioting over the death of George Floyd. The soaring crime rate since then has made recovery more difficult. LJ’s lawsuit and the resulting judgment against Trump have made other businesses reconsider whether to operate in New York. But LJ and the New York courts do not care. Their goal is the maintenance of Dem power and control.

New York City District Attorney’s criminal NDA case

This case against Trump has been the major focus of the Dem’s lawfare over the last month. It is also the most confusing lawfare case against him. This is a criminal case where the State of New York had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Manhattan D.A. (AB), an elected Dem, brought this criminal action against Trump. Trump was accused of falsifying business records regarding payments made to a porn star (SD) related to an alleged sexual encounter between them. AB alleged that Trump falsified the checks to keep voters from learning about the encounter prior to the 2016 presidential election.

SD alleged that the sexual encounter occurred in 2006 at a time when Trump had just married wife Melania who was pregnant with their child. Trump denies the sexual encounter with SD. In October 2016, a Trump attorney (MC) was contacted by SD’s legal representative who told MC that SD was about to go public about her encounter with Trump. MC claims that Trump then agreed to pay SD $130,000 in return for her signing a legal document agreeing to keep quiet about the affair. Non-disclosure agreements (NDA) are frequently used in civil matters like this where a settlement is reached between the parties.

MC says he made the $130,000 payment to SD from his own funds. In 2017, Trump then paid MC a series of checks noted to be legal expenses on their face. MC’s trial testimony calls into question whether Trump knew about SD’s claims and the payments made to her by MC prior to 2017. The payments to SD appear to have been made for the purpose of preventing wife Melania from learning about Trump’s alleged extra-marital affair with SD and were not related to Trump’s 2016 campaign. In 2018, MC pled guilty to federal charges including tax fraud, false statements made to a bank, and campaign finance violations related to his work for Trump.

The matter was investigated by federal tax and election authorities during Trump’s presidency. AB’s office also investigated the matter when Trump was still in office. They all found no violations of the law. But Dem officials from Biden’s Dept. of Justice (DOJ) urged AB to reopen the matter and proceed. A former DOJ official subsequently came to work for AB’s office and assisted the prosecution.

AB alleged that the checks should have been classified as campaign donations. In New York it is a misdemeanor to make a false entry on a check. But the misdemeanor can be moved up to a felony punishable by imprisonment if the falsification is done to cover up another crime. AB now says the other crime was a violation of another New York law for conspiring to promote a candidacy by false means, which is also a misdemeanor.

The trial was a sham from the start. The judge was a contributor to Biden’s campaign. The judge’s daughter is a campaign consultant for Dems, and she reportedly raised lots of money for Dem candidates stemming from the Trump trial. Hence, the judge should have recused himself due to the appearance of impropriety. There were other reversible errors made by the court including, but not limited to the following: (1.) denial of request to change venue; (2.) imposition of a gag order; (3.) refusing Trump’s request to delay the case until after the election and then rushing the matter to trial; (3.) limiting the testimony of Trump’s witnesses, including MC’s former attorney and an campaign finance expert; (4.) failing to sequester the jury in this high profile case; (5.) allowing the prosecution to make a case based mainly on the testimony of MC and SD, the latter of whom gave highly prejudicial testimony that was not relevant to the case; and (6.) giving the jury instructions for deliberation that practically ensured a guilty verdict on all counts and that allowed the possibility that federal laws were broken.

Trump’s lawyer said he is considering all options regarding an appeal of the conviction. Some legal experts believe that the matter should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Ct., on the basis that the New York conviction is interfering with a federal election. But that may be a long shot.

Trump’s sentencing has been scheduled for July 11th. This just days before the start of the Republican National Convention (RNC) where Trump will be formally confirmed as the GOP nominee for president. Republicans should consider nominating Trump by a simple roll call vote before the RNC to avoid any possible restrictions on sentencing which could prevent him from attending the Convention. Dems are considering doing the same thing for Biden so that he is not left off the ballot in Ohio.

The Georgia election interference case

The duly elected District Attorney in Fulton County (FW), Georgia brought multiple criminal charges against Trump for interference related to the 2020 election. FW is a Dem in a County that is heavily populated by Dems. Using the State’s RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws, FW claims Trump and his team urged State officials to intercede in the vote count days after the election. FW also accused Trump of election interference by questioning the integrity of the vote.

These charges are bogus to say the least. As president, Trump had a constitutional duty to ensure that the election laws were faithfully executed. Following the election, he received reports of improprieties by local officials in counting the votes. Hence, it was his duty to check into the matter with State officials. As for his questioning the vote, it was his First Amendment right to do so.

Like the other Trump cases, this is a case of first impression against a U.S. president. Dems have questioned the outcomes of recent presidential elections going back to John Kennedy in 1960, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2024, and Hilary Clinton in 2016. No legal actions were filed against them for election interference. Likewise, none should be filed against Trump for doing the same thing in 2020.

FW may have jeopardized the validity of the case when Trump lawyers disclosed an alleged affair between her and the special prosecutor she hired for the matter (NW). FW has more than enough prosecutors in her office who can handle the case. It is further alleged that FW may have benefited financially from the taxpayer funds used to pay NW. FW and NW are alleged to have had contacts with Biden administration officials.

The judge allowed FW to stay in the case provided she removed NW. Trump’s team has appealed that decision based on FW’s possible improprieties and alleged false statements made under oath when she was questioned about the NW situation. FW has also appealed the judge’s dismissal of multiple counts against Trump. The case will probably be delayed until after the presidential election.

DOJ’s classified documents claim

The Biden DOJ is prosecuting Trump criminally for the retention and mishandling of classified documents. This was the reason for the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022. The DOJ says that Trump held onto classified documents after he left the White, and then obstructed government attempts to retrieve them.

Trump says that he was allowed to declassify and retain the documents before leaving office pursuant to broad presidential authority granted him by the U.S. Constitution, and the executive orders of past administrations. He also says that prior to the raid on his home, he had been working with the feds to return certain documents the government needed under the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The Act does not carry criminal penalties.

The feds reject Trump’s claims and say the documents he was holding contain military secrets that have national security implications. But the feds will not say what those documents contain. Some speculate that the documents relate to Afghanistan. But there has been no evidence to suggest that Trump took the documents other than for his personal records.

DOJ efforts to fast-track the case have been halted by District Court Judge Eileen Cannon, who is overseeing the case in Florida. Judge Cannon is a Republican who was appointed by Trump in 2020. The DOJ still has more documents to produce for inspection by the Trump team. It is unlikely that the case will be heard before the election.

The PRA was enacted in the late 1970s. Every president since Ronald Reagan has taken documents when leaving office that the feds wanted back afterwards for various reasons. In each of those cases, the matters were resolved without criminal charges.

The feds are going after Trump for the same thing on which Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were exonerated; violation of the Espionage Act. Biden and Clinton were each found to have mishandled classified documents. The difference is that each of them did so when they were not president, meaning they had no power to declassify. Clearly, there is a double standard in the way the feds are handling their classified document claim against Trump.

Federal election subversion case

In this case, the Biden DOJ is going after Trump for allegedly attempting to subvert the 2020 election results. The feds accuse Trump of sending so-called “fake electors” on January 6, 2021, to contest the election results in a few of the states he lost. The feds say Trump did this in bad faith and with the sole intent of disrupting the election certification proceedings that day.

Like the Georgia case, Trump had a Constitutional duty to investigate credible allegations of election improprieties brought to his attention. Following investigation by his campaign and on the advice of counsel, he was told to select an alternate slate of electors for the few states he believed he had won. Had Trump not done this on January 6th, he would have lost his right to contest those states at the January 6th proceedings.

There is precedence for Trump’s actions. Alternate slates of electors were selected for contested presidential elections in 1876, 2000, 2004, and 2016. The candidates who did this were not prosecuted for doing so, and neither should Trump.

The case is currently under review by SCOTUS based on Trump’s assertion that he has full presidential immunity for acts taken within the scope of his authority as president. The Court may render its decision later this month before the Court’s summer recess. Legal experts believe that after rendering a decision, the high Court will send the matter back to the lower court for a hearing on the merits. Most likely, the case will not be resolved before the November election.