Yet Another Indictment for Non-Crimes

We have a scripture reading schedule at church, and my husband and I do some daily reading to keep up. Thursday morning we happened to be on Acts 24, in which Paul is accused of sedition. Those bringing him before the authorities have no evidence to provide against him. They are prosecuting him mainly because of his beliefs, which differ from their own.

This was nearly 2000 years ago, but it looks an awful lot like current news headlines.

Fox News headline, but I got the screenshot from The Benny Show.

On Tuesday, law vlogger Robert Gouveia went through the indictment, reading major portions of it online, splashed with some of his commentary. [He’s been covering this every day. This is Wednesday’s, which was also good. You can get all the clips and sources he uses from his daily mind map, available on his website, RobertGouveia.com.] Most surprising, he points out, is that there is no charge for seditious conspiracy. There are members of the Proud Boys in prison right now, convicted of seditious conspiracy, who claim they were led by Donald Trump. But there’s no charge that Trump was conspiring with them or participating in any actual sedition.

Of course there’s the possibility that they’ll add that charge later in a superseding indictment. Nothing is past the government at this point.

But, in reading through what the charges actually are, it comes down to this: Trump was told by multiple people that the election was not stolen, and that his plan to have alternate electors considered was not legally sound. He therefore knew (had mens rea) that what he was saying about the election was not true, and that what he was asking for in the counting of electors couldn’t be done.

What the charging document fails to note is that there were also multiple people, including very respectable legal counsel, telling him what most readers here believe: there was enough wrong with the election to suspect, or even assume, it was stolen. And one reading of the Constitution—which has historic precedence, and which the Democrats have attempted multiple times this century—is that when a state’s slate of electors are challenged, Congress can go into discussions and consider the claims of both sides. (Side note: there was enough confusion about what the VP had the power to do that a 2022 law clarifies it—meaning there was plenty of ambiguity in 2020.)

The various legal counsel with that opinion are now being called co-conspirators in an attempt to defraud the United States.

Charlie Kirk, on his Wednesday, August 2, podcast, interviewed attorney John Eastman and asked him whether he could confirm speculation that he was one of the co-conspirators. John Eastman verifies:

Yeah, well, it’s— It doesn’t take much to go from speculation to confirmation. They quote unindicted co-conspirator number 2; they quote a number of public documents of mine that are in the public realm. So, anybody that spends half a minute looking at this stuff knows I’m co-conspirator number 2. My attorneys put out a statement to that effect last night. But I suppose it’s good news, from my point of view, that I’m an unindicted co-conspirator rather than an indicted conspirator. I look forward to maybe being called as a witness, to come to President Trump’s defense.

Because, getting legal advice about contested interpretations of constitutional provisions is not and never has been and never should be a criminal action.

The most important point here is that getting legal advice about contested interpretations of law must not ever be considered criminal. You can think one way or another about Trump and still want the actual rule of law—rather than lawfare—to prevail.

This is both ridiculous and extremely dangerous. Legal counsel isn’t required to be right or else be punished with prison. Legal counsel is to give a plaintiff advice about ways to present a case. It is about presenting ideas and opinions in what is intended to be an adversarial system. You eliminate any balance of the scales of justice, if one side arbitrarily gets to decide it is right—before trial—and anyone disagreeing is not only wrong but illegally subversive.

from Wikipedia

John Eastman goes on to describe what we might call lawfare:

What’s really going on here is an attempt to prevent people who are unpopular with the elites in our country from having competent legal representation—from having any representation at all. The effort by the 65 Project to go after every one of the attorneys that was involved in any of these election challenges—they make no bones about it. They specifically said, “Our goal here is not just to have them disbarred, but to make them toxic in their firms and in their communities so that right-wing legal talent will never take on these election challenges again.” Of course, if that’s succeeds, then it clears the path for complete manipulation of election processes without anyone willing or able to step up to challenge it in the courts.

It takes a certain personality to engage in lawfare. Prosecutor Jack Smith is one such example. In a podcast (“Jack Smith - A Psychological Analysis” August 2, 2023) Mr. Reagan (Christopher Kohls) might be on the verge of name calling. But he calls out prosecutor Jack Smith as a nerd—a cool-guy wannabe who hasn’t grown out of his awkwardness even well into middle age. Smith exaggerates, uses dramatic emphasis in his delivery, and in every way verifies to us that he is unhinged by his hatred of all things related to Trump—and, by extension, all of us. His wife produced a documentary on Michelle Obama. There isn’t a chance Smith is unbiased or professional. He’s just a tool.

Humor helps in times like these.
meme found on Facebook

It has been a while since I read Orwell’s 1984. I remember the “memory hole” way of changing history. Check. And I remember the unwillingness to accept differing views. Check. I remember the protagonist, Winston, being subjected to something considered therapeutic to eliminate his unwillingness to submit to the state’s version of truth—until he finally comes out gladly proclaiming that 2+2=5. Let’s call that an attempted check so far. In the book, did they arrest and imprison people for disagreeing with Big Brother? Maybe they did. So, we’re either like the 1984 dystopia, or we’re worse.

I say this as I still freely write this and post it (albeit in obscurity). Because, at this point government power is attempting to be absolute, but the people have not yet submitted.

Two podcasts I listened to played a clip of one of Rush Limbaugh’s last broadcasts [The Benny Show and the Charlie Kirk podcast]. It’s worth quoting Rush here:

I know that they desperately want Trump gone. And I know that they desperately want it codified that Trump cannot run again, because, make no mistake, they remain scared to death of you, and they remain scared to death of Trump. Trump’s 75 million, 80 million votes. And I’m going to tell you, you’re not going anywhere. Even if Trump does, you’re not. They can’t separate you from Trump. And, more importantly, they can’t separate you from the ideas. They can’t separate you from MAGA. They can’t separate you from Make America Great Again—which I think remains one of our big campaign strengths going forward. They believe that they can destroy this bond that exists between you and Trump, if they somehow make Trump look bad, make Trump look like a reprobate, embarrass you about Trump. They can’t do it, because you came before Trump.

The great Rush Limbaugh, in one of his last shows.
Screenshot from here

Rush reminded us that their persecution of Trump is essentially a proxy war for their persecution of us—the ones with minds that they do not yet control. They can’t stand not controlling us. And Trump is in their way. Trump himself has said as much.

The enemy seems to have this misconception that, because our side is made up of law-abiding citizens, we must be scandalized by a federal indictment of a candidate. Trump must be bad if the feds have brought charges against him, right? But too many of us see this as it is: a political attack—on us, through him. So his poll numbers go up.

OK, back to the document. One of the charges suggests Trump is guilty of “conspiracy against rights,” whatever that means. Charlie Kirk explained it on his show:

Conspiracy against rights. What in the fresh heck is conspiracy against rights? 18 U.S.Code § 241. What in the heck is that? Conspiracy against rights?

Well, it was passed in the 1870s, known as the KKK Act. Not used very frequently. It’s hard to prove. But for those of you that watch our show closely and carefully, for those of you that take our warnings seriously, there was a test case.

Do you remember the young, innocent man, who we tried our best to raise legal support for? Who— Actually, I think Turning Point donated I think $10,000 to his legal fund. Douglass Mackey. Does that name ring a bell? Well, recently Douglass Mackey was sentenced—well, I don’t know if he’s been sentenced; he’s been convicted, awaiting sentencing—because he made a meme in the 2016 election. Remember that? Because he made a meme making fun of Hillary Clinton, the Biden DOJ goes and says, “We’re going to put you in federal prison.”

Now, we were infuriated about this. Tucker Carlson, to his great credit. By the way, there’s clear examples of Democrats doing the exact same thing. Douglass Mackey, being a white, conservative meme warrior, faces nearly a decade in federal prison. But it was a test case. Because they indicted him on 18 U.S.C. § 241, Conspiracy against rights, dusting off a KKK era bill, a law that allows the federal government to criminalize your activity, your constitutional rights, if it’s a threat to the regime—if they can convince twelve people to do it.

This is a well-orchestrated legal trial-and-error. They try it on Douglass Mackey to be able to use it against Donald Trump.

And a lot of people said, “Oh, the Douglass Mackey thing. He made a meme. How does that impact me?” Well, Douglass Mackey was patient zero. Douglass Mackey was patient zero of the dusting off of 18 U.S.C. § 241, Conspiracy against rights.

I looked up the meme. 

meme attributed to Douglass Mackey, found here

It’s clearly satire, mocking low-information Democrat voters. If someone lacks the intelligence to know that, without a well-publicized change in the law (see 2020, when such things as illegal voting process changes happened, but were definitely well-publicized), you have to actually vote in person, not by social media post, then that person lacks the intelligence to vote. Now, while we don’t have an intelligence test for voters (although there are times when that might seem like a prudent option to pursue), a real voter ought to know, among all the other facts, that there is more than one race on the ballot, so you actually need a ballot in order to vote. This satire didn't infringe on any actual person's right to vote. Nevertheless, Mackey is convicted, pending appeal.

The timing of the Trump indictment seems to be following a pattern. More than one person has pointed out the correlation between bad news coming out about Biden and new charges against Trump. [As an aside, there’s a similar correlation between bad Biden news and alien reports—called UAPs now instead of UFOs.] Trump attorney Alina Habba provides the list: 

The fact that I am standing here for the third time in five months is not a coincidence. This is the Biden political lawfare that we have seen time and time again. It is a deflection from everything that they have done. And if you don’t believe me, look at the facts:

·        On March 17 Hunter accidentally admits that it was his laptop from hell. The next day DA Alvin Bragg indicts President Trump.

·        June 8^th, an FBI document is released, showing that the Ukrainians paid the Biden crime family millions and millions of dollars. The next day, the Mar-a-Lago Raid, and the Mar-a-Lago indictment.

·        Last week Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal fell through when the judge realized it had blanket immunity. The following day, a superseding indictment against Donald Trump.

·        July 31^st Devon Archer goes to testify in front of the House. That was only after they failed to put him in jail prior to the fact. What happens the next day? The January 6^th indictment that we’re here for today.

This is not a coincidence. This is election interference at its finest, against the leading candidate right now for president, for either party. President Trump is under siege in a way that we have never seen before. President Trump and his legal team, and everyone on his team, will continue to fight—not for him, but for the American people.

 In his Wednesday night special, Glenn Beck went over a number of things we’re facing. But there was something somewhat hopeful that he said:

You have to realize you have the power still. You have all of the real power. You just don’t believe it. The Deep State was forcibly exposed last week in court. Does that happen without people like you and me speaking out every time we see this stuff? I don’t think it does.

The exposure needs to continue, because, if we don’t, we will lose.

It’s hard to see times as bad as these and be hopeful. But companies who showed that they hate their customers have learned they need those customers more than the customers need those companies. This has been true for Budweiser, Target, Disney, and a number of others. We stop doing business with them, and the companies sink. We had more power than we realized.

We have that power—God given—in the political sphere as well. We used to think it was our collective votes that made us powerful, but they have mainly taken that from us. So it will have to be either recovering free and fair elections or some other way we can’t yet see. May God show us what to do, and when, so we can recover our constitutional republic!