The Weaponization of Justice: How the Latest Indictment Against Trump Could Backfire - AGAIN!
In a stunning decision last month, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that establishes a framework for prosecuting former Presidents based on their actions in office. In doing so they seemed to seriously deflate any chances Jack Smith had of bringing fire against his now nemesis - former President Donald Trump.
Today however, Jack Smith filed a “superseding indictment” against Donald Trump which seeks to navigate within this framework, targeting what it argues are his unofficial acts. Yet, the timing of this indictment, just months before the 2024 election, raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of our justice system.
ARE YOU IN WITH THE IN CROWD AT RATIONAL GROUND?
The Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Double-Edged Sword
The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity was both a shield and a sword. On the one hand, it reinforced the idea that a President must have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, ensuring that the office remains free from politically motivated prosecutions. On the other hand, the Court cracked the door open for prosecuting a former President for actions deemed unofficial—a gray area that could be weaponized.
And weaponized it has been.
The superseding indictment against Trump, coming hot on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, laser-focuses on actions that the government argues were unofficial—his communications with state officials, his efforts to contest the 2020 election, and his public statements leading up to January 6.
The message is clear: Trump’s actions were not presidential, but personal - and frankly, all of this feels — personal :(
Synopsis of the Superseding Indictment
Just when you thought the DOJ might take a step back and let the American people decide the 2024 election, they decided to go all-in on ANOTHER indictment against Trump. Here’s the rundown:
Sham Investigations?: The DOJ accuses Trump of trying to use the Justice Department to conduct what they call “sham election crime investigations” and send letters to states, falsely claiming that the DOJ had “identified significant concerns” about the election outcome. Because obviously, we should now criminalize asking questions and looking into irregularities.
The Fraudulent Elector Fiasco: According to the indictment, Trump didn’t stop at questioning the results. No, they allege he organized “fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states” and had them transmit these “false certificates” to the Vice President and other officials, all to disrupt the January 6 certification proceedings.
Strong-Arming the DOJ and Pence: Trump allegedly tried to twist the arm of the Justice Department into backing his claims, threatening to replace the Acting Attorney General when they didn’t comply(supreme-court-immunity-…). And then there’s the accusation that he pressured Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role to “fraudulently alter the election results.” When that didn’t work, the DOJ claims Trump directed his supporters to march on the Capitol.
Milking the Capitol Chaos: When the Capitol was attacked, instead of retreating into a bunker of despair, the DOJ accuses Trump of “exploiting the disruption” by redoubling his efforts to delay the certification, pushing even more of those supposedly “knowingly false” claims of election fraud.
Pressuring Pence... Really?: Trump apparently committed the mortal sin of trying to persuade Mike Pence to reject the electoral votes. The DOJ would have you believe that this was more than just political maneuvering—it was a criminal conspiracy! I personally had SERIOUS qualms about this decision by Trump but is it criminal?
So, what does this all add up to? The DOJ is coming after Trump with charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and more.
They’re trying to thread the needle and get one in before the election - or something.
Election Interference in Plain Sight
What is particularly galling about this indictment is its timing. With the 2024 election looming, the DOJ’s decision to pursue Trump with this vigor smacks of election interference. This is not a wild conspiracy theory—it’s a reality we need to confront. Every move against Trump at this point plays directly into the hands of those who argue that the Biden administration is weaponizing the DOJ to neutralize political opponents.
I’ve avoided those acute accusations, but it’s hard to blame anyone for holding these views.
Make no mistake: this is not just a legal battle; it’s a political one.
And history tells us that politically motivated prosecutions backfire. The last time we saw a judgment of this kind against Trump, it led to the biggest fundraising surge of the entire election cycle on the Right.
(that large spike was the day of the 34 felony convictions)
Not only that, but his popularity grew. By portraying Trump as a martyr, the left may be handing him the keys to a stronger, more energized base.
Beware the Long-Term Consequences
For those cheering on this prosecution, a word of caution. What we’re witnessing isn’t just about Trump—it’s about the precedent being set. The same legal rationale being used today could be used tomorrow against any political figure who steps out of line. The lines between legal accountability and political retribution are being blurred in a way that could have far-reaching consequences for our democracy.
Today, it’s Trump. Tomorrow, it could be anyone.
What do you think? Is this about justice or something else entirely? Let’s continue the conversation.
In the last week, PA has denied ballot access to Cornell West, and Wisconsin to Jill Stein. PA also denied RFK Jr., but Kennedy has subsequently withdrawn his name in ALL swing states.
And now a superseding indictment of Trump with a new grand jury?
All the Democrats know is lawfare. And election interference. And nothing can/will be done to rectify the harm caused.
It always irritates the hell out of me when they say that Trump “knew” that the claims of voter fraud were false. He knew no such thing.
Everything that I’ve seen since the 2020 election has proven that there was plenty of evidence of fraud in several jurisdictions, more than enough to charge the presidential election results…… had the courts been brave or impartial enough to take the cases.