In courtrooms in New York and Colorado, legal atrocities continued this week against the 45^th President of the United States and his family. The House of Representatives, which should be making this attempt to subvert the 2024 election the first item on its agenda, is instead distracted by a new war in the Middle East.

In 1940, former Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote the moral manual for prosecutors. He warned: “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. . . It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. 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, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

For years, Jackson’s address, entitled simply, The Federal Prosecutor, was mandatory study for any employee of the Department of Justice, any aspiring law student, any federal judge. That standard passed into oblivion long ago. Everything that Jackson warned against became the new standard in the DOJ. Its present moral sickness now stalks us all. Searching the law books to find statutes which can be twisted and bent in completely novel ways or are themselves Constitutionally suspect has been the rule for a long time.  It is now applied full force against Donald Trump. Instead of the old Hollywood Western meme of the posse rounded up to raid the jail for the hanging; fanatical fiends appear with law books and sophistries.

In New York City, the “fraud” trial taking place against the Trump Organization has been designed to kill the businesses Donald Trump spent most of his life building.  It is a type of public civic rape aimed squarely at the psyche. New York Attorney General Leticia James who is bringing the case, campaigned for office in 2018 on the sole claim that she would “get Trump.” For the subsequent five years, she has worked with a task force of lawyers, on loan from New York’s biggest Wall Street law firms and the DOJ itself to concoct the perfect lawfare assault.

As Columbia law professor Phillip Hamburger pointed out in the Wall Street Journal of November 1^st, the Trump Organization is being charged with “fraud” under the Constitutionally suspect New York Executive law 63(12) which allows draconian business-killing remedies for simple factual misstatements absent any intent to defraud, absent recklessness, absent negligence, and absent damage to anyone. The law also allows the Attorney General to conduct full-fledged fishing expeditions through business and personal records without court supervision.

This extraordinary and dangerous statute was previously used against Exxon Mobil in New York’s failed prosecution of the company for “misstatements” about the impact of climate change. The use eviscerates the heart of the First Amendment which protects against prosecuting statements which might later turn out to be wrong. Its use in scientific contexts in the hands of leftist Jacobins like Leticia James presages a new Inquisition.

Under the use of this statute, the fact that the loans made to the Trump organization by banks were repaid in full at a profit, that real estate valuation is notoriously fluid and subject to different acceptable methodologies, that the financial statements warned about potential inaccuracy and told the banks to perform their own due diligence which they did—all of that is irrelevant. The Trump Organization’s defense that both the financial statements themselves and the prosecution’s counter valuations dramatically undervalue the properties in question, has also been dismissed as irrelevant by Judge Arthur Engeron.

Complementing the ignorant Ms. James, Engeron is a hippy former taxi driver reveling in his current national prominence. In other business cases, he has been repeatedly reversed by New York’s appellate courts. On Friday, Breitbart News published a report that Engeron’s clerk, Allison Greenfield, had egregiously violated a New York law which prohibits more than $500 in political contributions by court personnel. According to Breitbart, Greenfield donated repeatedly and systematically to a bevy of New York Democratic political clubs. Both Judge Engeron and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan have issued gag orders against Trump for questioning Greenfield’s impartiality, including joking that she was Senator Chuck Schumer’s girlfriend in a deleted social media post.

Meanwhile in Colorado, Friday saw the conclusion of farcical testimony in a show trial aimed at kicking Donald Trump off the Presidential Election Ballot based on the claim that he led an insurrection on January 6, 2021. The same claim was argued Friday before what was reported to be a highly skeptical Minnesota Supreme Court. The judge conducting the Colorado bench trial is also a Democratic Party political operative who donated to a Colorado group aiming to prevent “insurrections like that that happened on January 6, 2021.” Challenged on this, she refused to recuse herself. The case is brought by CREW, funded by George Soros and other dark money operatives active in the entire subversive campaign against Trump dating from 2015.

The 14th Amendment disqualification claim is pure lunacy which twists and turns the plain circumstance for its enactment and its intent beyond recognition. It was fully aired and rejected in Trump’s second impeachment trial. It requires that January 6, 2021, be an insurrection equivalent to the Civil War rather than the four hour federally controlled riot that it was. At best, the section applies to electors for the President and Vice President, not the president. It requires conviction for an insurrection for which Trump hasn’t been and can’t be charged. There is no evidence to support the charge and even the Trump-hating Special Counsel Jack Smith knows this and hasn’t charged it.

Kash Patel, then assistant to the Secretary of Defense, testified in the Colorado case that Trump sought to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol on January 6^th but was subverted by D.C. Mayor Bowser and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the responsible officials for the Guard’s deployment, because they didn’t like the optics. Further, as this author has often noted, the federally provoked violence on that day ended any hope of successfully challenging the fraud and rigging which did occur in the 2020 presidential election.

Again, these cases underline the importance of our petition to end the prosecutions of Trump by defunding them while impeaching Attorney General Merrick Garland. We are one year away from the most important election of our lifetimes. The House needs to focus and stop the lawfare coup as its first America First priority. Please sign and circulate the petition now.

Over the weekend, we’ll review the status of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s jihad against Trump in Washington, D.C., and the Southern District of Florida.