Protect us — say the Biden administration's malevolent, whiny-boy prosecutors

© 2023 Peter Free


05 August 2023





What follows regards the Department of Justice's indictment of former president, Donald Trump — linked here:



In summary form


Merrick Garland's Stasi-prone Department of Justice made up — and/or exaggerated — allegedly illegal actions committed by former president, Donald Trump.


Then, it prosecuted him — regarding these alleged actions — on indisputably constitutionally questionable grounds.


And last — as we will see just below — it ran for judicial cover, when the politically targeted Trump said that he would fight back.



DoJ's power-stealing wimps run for cover


From the pro-autocracy (and usually lying) Yahoo!News, comes the following report — my insertions in bracketed italics:



The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after he released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.



[In actuality, what Trump posted on 04 August 2023 — on his TruthSocial dot com webpage was — "If you go after me, I'm coming after you." In all capital letters.


That statement is cognizably different, especially in these highly marginal circumstances, than threatening implied violent, or even just illegal, revenge.


Trump's statement was a communication about fighting back against the politically intended misuse of prosecutorial power.]



Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order in the case a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power.


The order — which is different from a so-called “gag order” — would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.


Prosecutors' proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses' lawyers or others approved by the court.


It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.


© 2023 Alanna Durkin Richer, Prosecutors ask judge to issue protective order after Trump post appearing to promise revenge, Yahoo!News (05 August 2023)



In other words


Prosecutors (we are to believe from these circumstances) can lie, exaggerate and distort all they want in their overreaching — arguably anti-free-speech — indictment of Donald Trump.


And worse, they go on to implicitly maintain that they should be allowed to continue along this Road of Tyrannical Malevolence by using the judicial system to prevent Donald Trump from using those same indictment materials to expose the Department of Justice's distortions — before either trial, or the 2024 presidential election.



We can thus intuit that . . .


. . . the thrust of this latest federal indictment is to hamstring the former president's announced candidacy in 2024's presidential election.


There can be no reasonable doubt that the Democratic Party's intent, implemented by the suspected rabidly corrupt Biden administration, is to prevent Trump from pursuing his presidential ambitions. This, by procedurally dragging the indictment out through the 2024 election. Or by throwing Trump into prison on the indictment's post-trial basis, before the election takes place.


By way of review, the Department of Justice not only officially impugns Trump at its apparently integrity-lacking and constitution-defying will, it simultaneously tries to prevent Trump from exposing its easily arguable lies, distortions and exaggerations in a timely pre-election manner.


Situations do not get more totalitarian in intent, than this one.



My assessment — a misuse of prosecutorial power


An attorney myself, I have read the indictment in full.


From a judicial standpoint, the charges contained in the federal indictment are very difficult to prove. And, further, they egregiously slop over Trump's constitutionally protected right to free speech.


Particularly problematic from my perspective, is the document's repeated references to what the election vote-counting truth (supposedly) was — and how Trump should have known this — despite not once citing to legitimately held and well-documented investigations of what had really happened.


In short, we are once again led down the primrose path by election officials — in both political parties — claiming that their investigations of themselves were bona fide and required no independent verification.


A sanely led — and integrity-bound — Department of Justice would not have filed such a legally gray-area case, under circumstances that have such blatantly wide and deep constitutional implications.


Not only does this indictment questionably treat the First Amendment's protection of speech, it also attacks the Separation of Powers concept — given that Trump was in presidential office at the time these dubiously alleged violations of law occurred.


A sanely led polity does not attack two of its core founding concepts, under circumstances that absolutely do not require such a legally and morally hazard-laden endeavor.


In my view, this form of Government-instigated political hounding travels well down the road to the absolute totalitarian-ization of the United States.



A note about Trump's penchant for bringing bad things upon himself


This blog is full of mentions of my personal distaste for Donald Trump.


Certainly, the Department of Justice indictment exposes abysmal character traits in him.


If one were to read the DoJ's indictment with a non-attorney's eye, one could easily be sucked into believing that Trump is not only evil, but must be locked up for our societal good. The document is cleverly and carefully crafted to leave us all with that impression.


And certainly, Trump makes it easy to impugn his character. He is constantly bloviating in rude, careless and poorly thought out manner. A careful fact-observer, he is not. A casual brusher-aside of other people's interests, he certainly is.


On the other hand, the First Amendment is intended to protect abrasive and difficult people, despite those qualities in them. Were it not so, virtually all of us — who possess any character at all — would be in jail, or worse.


Pertinent here, despite Democrats' claim that society exists to prevent anyone from being offended, Liberty's perennial truth is the reverse.


It is Liberty that is at stake in this matter. Not Democrats' wish to impose bars against anything which that pusillanimous collection of intellectual and moral sluggards wishes to impose upon the American public.


We Americans have traditionally been free to be Adam Henrys. And so, it should remain.


Law should not be twisted out of legitimate purpose, so as to allow the equivalent of royalty to arbitrarily and autocratically define the national manner.



The moral? — 'Lie, pillage, murder and enslave' . . .


. . .  is the brain-dead Biden administration's apparently guiding motto.


This is exactly the situation that Thomas Jefferson foresaw, when he anticipatorily spoke of the "blood of patriots and tyrants".