….At a certain point Lawfare fails.
Do you remember the prosecution “Witness #8” in the case against George Zimmerman? The person described as Trayvon Martin’s “girlfriend” who was claimed by FOUR state prosecutors to be the star “ear witness” against Zimmerman.
Do you remember how we waited month after month, laughing at how the State of Florida was relying upon their one key witness, and we all knew it was totally made up?
Do you remember the buildup, the drama, the media’s breathless anticipation, and the eventual beverage that flushed out of your nose in laughter when the State called Witness #8, and brought Rachel Jeantel to the stand?
Not only did she have no clue about any detail the prosecution was saying, she didn’t fit any of the profile that was claimed to be her importance in the case. And… not only could she not read the statement the State of Florida claimed she wrote (she didn’t), Jeantel didn’t even know Trayvon Martin. She was completely manufactured by the prosecution because her mom was a friend of Trayvon’s mom. Everyone wondered how the hell the prosecution could even put her on the stand. Remember that?
The reason they put her on the stand was because the prosecution and Trayvon’s family had no choice. For over a year, they had hyped up this imaginary “ear witness” in an effort to convince Zimmerman to take a plea deal. That was the purpose of the fabrication, and when George Zimmerman didn’t take the plea – when he forced the prosecution to put Witness #8 on the stand – the case collapsed, because the case was manufactured.
When people ask me about the DOJ and/or Jack Smith bringing an indictment against President Trump, in many ways I laugh while waiting for the DOJ to bring a proverbial Jeantel to the court. The DOJ has to indict Trump for the same reason Angela Corey had to put Jeantel on the stand. Their political narrative cases have to continue regardless of the evidence. Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.
Technically Lawfare doesn’t need an actual viable legal argument behind it. Much like Zimmerman’s imaginary witness #8, Lawfare can be assembled out of loin cloth. However, at a certain point that legal fabrication runs into the reality of a judicial system it is not designed to defeat.
If the leaks to the media are accurate, WE WERE RIGHT!
Main Justice and DOJ special counsel Jack Smith have run head-first into the problem that President Trump declassified all the documents he retained in Mar-a-Lago.
Again, if the media reports are accurate, Jack Smith is now relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW]
Here is how the media are putting it:
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”.
The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.
That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document …relating to the national defence,” and “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison. (LINK)
Main Justice is now stretching Code 793 to claim any document the government designates as a “national security document” is a national defense document.
I am almost certain this is because the 11th circuit court of appeals ruled the DOJ can label whatever it wants, in any form it wants. As long as the DOJ claims it is a national security interest, it becomes a national security interest. This ruling came from the arguments over the Mar-a-Lago documents. REMEMBER:
[SOURCE]
If the DOJ says a box of Cheerios is a national security threat, the Judicial Branch accepts that all Cheerio boxes are proffered national-security concerns. It doesn’t matter what the Trump documents are, as long as the DOJ can claim they are vital national security interests.
In the previous ruling of the Mar-a-Lago documents, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit deferred all definitions to the DOJ.
The DOJ is granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
[NOTE: In the post 9-11 surveillance state, this approach by the DOJ-NSD is a pillar holding the Fourth Branch of Government in place, as we have outlined. The other pillars are (2) the Dept of Homeland Security, (3) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and (4) the secret FISA Court system. All four pillars maintain an omnipotent fourth branch of government that operates entirely without oversight. As you can see in the 11th Circuit Court ruling, there is no check or balance in the post 9-11 national security state.]
However, their target isn’t an ordinary citizen or target. The target of these “definitions”, and make no mistake – ultimately this is what the case comes down to, definitions – is the former President of the United States who had unilateral authority to define anything he wanted.
The case against President Donald Trump might look bad on paper, because that is what the case against Donald Trump was designed to do. However, ultimately this case is on a trajectory to go up to a much higher court in discovery and pre-trial argument, because eventually these definitions are going to become an issue for the prosecution.
♦ THE TELL – Here’s the “tell” that every pundit, analyst and litigation expert will pretend they don’t notice. It’s the funniest part of the entire thing and yet no one, again except us, is noticing it. The DOJ has already predicated the baseline of their claim by saying they cannot tell anyone, even the court, what the nature of the documents are that underpin their assertion. Remember, they wouldn’t even let a court appointed “special master” review the documents.
Stop and think about that for a moment. NO ONE knows what the documents are, and the DOJ has stated they will never say what the documents are. The DOJ is filing a case about the mishandling of documents, in whatever legal construct they put forth, while simultaneously saying they are under no obligation to tell anyone what the documents are.
DOJ: Trump violated USC 793 in his discussion and/or handling of documents.
Trump Lawyers: What documents?
DOJ: We can’t say, and we won’t tell you.
The case against George Zimmerman looked bad when everyone thought Witness #8 was real. Hell, almost the entire country believed it.
This case against President Trump is of a very similar Lawfare intention in construct.
