Lawlessness at the Top and the Bottom of Society

Lawfare and overregulation at the top; toleration and promotion of crimininality among the lower orders. A depredatory theme of the previous administration.

Overregulation is well documented by Neil Gorsuch in his Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law, HarperCollins 2024.

You should rejoice that the destructive Dems have met their nemesis. Nemesis is the Greek goddess of retribution. 'Retribution' has two senses, a fact one cannot expect dumb Dems to understand. The one sense is that of 'revenge'; the other is that of 'retributive justice.' The national course correction being engineered by President Donald J. Trump and his team has much more the latter in it than the former.

No One is Above the Law!

No one is above the law, but only if the law is above everyone, impartial and uninfluenced by partisan will.

But that is not now the case with terminally mendacious, anti-civilizational leftists hard at work destroying our constitutional republic. And yet these brazen, serial liars never leave off posturing as defenders of 'democracy,' 'the Constitution,' and the 'rule of law.'

For these Orwellian subverters of language, 'rule of law' means rule of lawfare, 'democracy' means oligarchy, and the Constitution has no fixed meaning, but whatever meaning leftists wish to assign to it.

Unfortunately, conservatives and old-time Democrats are slow on the uptake, unable or perhaps unwilling to see what is happening in plain view. But the times they are a'changin.'

Right-Wing Bob approximates to the Biblical in the following lines.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’

The Trump Conviction: It Depends How the Question is Framed

Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon.  Indisputably true. And so the question is asked: "Would you vote for a convicted felon for U. S. president?"

Time was when almost everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would have answered in the negative. For until recently lawfare was rare if not nonexistent in the USA.  When procedural norms were respected, a conviction meant something: to be found guilty in a properly conducted proceeding by a jury of one's peers was taken to be good evidence of actual guilt.

But no more. We conservatives are unmoved by Trump's being a convicted felon. We return an affirmative answer to a different question: "Would you vote for a victim of lawfare railroaded in a Soviet-style show trial for U. S. president?" Yes. For  to be 'convicted' of a 'felony' in a show trial  in which the procedural rules have been flouted has no tendency to show that the defendant is guilty of any crime.

A defendant found guilty of a crime in a court of law may or may not be guilty of the crime with which he is charged — even if the  courtroom proceedings were procedurally correct in every respect. And similarly if he were found not guilty. One may be found not guilty and yet be guilty. O. J. Simpson was found not guilty of the double homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.  You will all remember that so-called 'trial of the century.'  But no one believes that Simpson did not do the dastardly deeds. Though found not guilty, his guilt stank and stinks to high heaven.  No one is looking for the 'real killer,' to adapt a verbal riff from the late F. Lee Bailey. So while the courtroom proceedings were procedurally correct,  the objectively wrong verdict was arrived at: found not guilty, Simpson was in fact guilty.

A fortiori in the case of Trump in which the procedural rules were set aside. Alan Dershowitz:

The infamous conversation between Stalin and the head of his KGB Lavrenty Beria is often quoted: 'Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.'

This prosecution was even worse because, though DA Bragg tried desperately to find a crime with which to charge Trump, he failed to find one, as did his predecessor Cyrus Vance.

So Bragg went a dangerous step further than Stalin ever did: he made up a crime.

He found a misdemeanor that was past the statute of limitations — making a false bookkeeping entry on a corporate form — and magically converted it to a felony that was within the limitation period by alleging that the false entry was intended to cover up another crime.

Throughout the trial, many people inferred that crime to be an alleged attempt at election interference. But Bragg never actually explicitly stated that.

In fact, the prosecution didn't tell the court what Trump's other 'crimes' were until their closing arguments on Wednesday – by which point the defense had no opportunity to respond.

And even then, the supposed crimes outlined were vague.

In his closing instructions, Judge Juan Merchan exposed his already apparent bias once more – telling the jurors that they didn't actually have to agree on the specifics of Trump's unlawful behavior.

How could someone defend themselves against such vague allegations?

It was at this moment that I became convinced that the jury would find him guilty.

And that conviction may well mark the beginning of a new era of partisan weaponization of our justice system.

DA Bragg has demonstrated how easy it now is to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious DA's are likely to follow suit. And the ultimate losers will be the American public.

John Yoo is right : this is a direct assault on the rule of law and the separation of powers.  

Sohrab Ahmari on ‘Lawfare’

An exercise in naïveté:

Reacting to Donald Trump’s hush-money conviction in Manhattan on 30 May, the French writer Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry asked on X: “Has there been a single left-of-centre person… who has said: ‘Hey, nakedly partisan prosecutions of your political opponents goes against the values of liberal democracy, rule of law, justice, and everything my side claims to support?’”

A number of progressive figures have, in fact, decried lawfare against Trump and the Trumpians.

[. . .]

But the honour roll of the principled anti-lawfare left is all too short. That’s a shame, because right-wing populists won’t be the only victims.

[. . .]

Such partiality in the application of law and institutional norms should alarm progressives. 

Sohrabi comes across as naïve. Since when is the Left in any classical sense liberal? Since when are these 'progressives' in any sense progressive.    They are more aptly described as regressive, anti-civilizational nihilists.

Leftists are so far gone that they are willing to protract their nihilism unto the destruction of the very secular values that they supposedly champion. Pascal Bruckner:

Generations of leftists saw the working class as the messianic leaven of a radiant humanity; now, willing to flirt with the most obscurantist bigotry and to betray their own principles, they [have] transferred their hopes to the Islamists.

The Muslim as the new proletarian.

The worst of the great religions, "the saddest and poorest form of theism," (Schopenhauer) is defended when a defining project of the Left was the cleansing of the earth of the "opium of the people." (Karl Marx, full quotation here.)

Add to that the absurdity that the Left, whose own secular values are secularizations of Christian notions, attacks Christianity viciously while cozying up to Islamists.

It's insane, but then the Left is insane in any case.

Know the enemy and show him no quarter.

I know. You don't want to believe it is a war. It's a war. Which side are you on?

The Destruction of Jurisprudence

Victor Davis Hanson:

Now we are left with a final toxic gift from this [Boomer] generation: the destruction of jurisprudence, a system designed not to easily protect the popular and admired but those often pilloried in the public square, the unorthodox, eccentric, and unliked.

Even Trump’s antagonists know that had Donald Trump been a man of the left, or had he not run again for president, he would never have been charged, much less convicted, of felonies or been punished with nearly a half-billion dollars in legal fees and fines.

We all accept that the charges brought against him by a vindictive and left-wing Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis and Jack Smith—all compromised by either past politicized prosecutorial failures or boasts of getting Trump—have never before been brought against any prior political figure or indeed any average citizen. They were instead invented to target a single political enemy. So what hallowed law, what constitutional norm, what ancient custom, or what Bill or Rights has the fading left not destroyed in order to erase Donald Trump from the political scene?

There is now no distinction between state and federal law. Once a prosecutor targets an enemy, he can flip back and forth between such statutes to find the necessary legal gimmick to destroy his target.

Statutes of limitations are no more as errant prosecutors and political operatives in the legislature can change laws to dredge up supposed crimes of years past, to destroy their political enemies, by employing veritable bills of attainder.

The very notion of an exculpatory hung jury depends on who is to be hung.

Judges can overtly contribute to the political opponents of the accused before them. Their children can profit in the tens of millions by selling to politicos their relationship to the very judge who holds the fate of their political opponents in his hands.

In sum, the First Amendment guaranteeing the right of the defendant to free speech is now not applicable. Asymmetrical gag orders are.

The Fourth Amendment is now torn to shreds by those who boast of “saving democracy.” When the FBI, on orders from a hostile administration, storms into the home of the leading presidential candidate and ex-president’s home, armed to the teeth, treats a civil dispute as a violent felony, and then doctors the evidence it finds, then constitutional insurance against “unreasonable searches and seizures” becomes a bitter joke for generations.

The Fifth Amendment’s protection that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” has been destroyed when an ex-president cannot summon expert legal witnesses to testify on his behalf and when he cannot bring in evidence that contradicts his accusers. There is no due process when one ex-president is indicted for the very crimes his exempted successor has committed.

The Sixth Amendment’s various assurances are now kaput. No one believes that Trump was tried “by an impartial jury of the State”—not when prosecutors deliberately indicted him in a city where 85 percent of the population voted against him and are by design of a different political party.

No longer will an American have the innate right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” when Donald Trump was never informed by prosecutor Alvin Bragg of the felony for which he was charged, with little advance idea of all the hostile prosecutorial witnesses to be called, and with no right to call in experts to refute the prosecution’s bizarre notion of campaign finance violations.

The Seventh Amendment is likewise now on the ash heap of history. The publicity-seeking judge Arthur Engoron, a political antagonist of Trump, warped the law in order to serve as judge, jury, and executioner of Trump’s fate, without recourse to a jury of even his biased New York peers.

The Eighth Amendment will offer assurance no longer to the American people that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Donald Trump was fined $83.3 million in the E. Jean Carroll case for an alleged assault of three decades past, brought by partisan manipulative waving of the statute of limitations, with the politicized accuser having no idea of the year the assault took place, with her accusations arising only decades later when Trump became a political candidate, with her own employers insisting she was fired for reasons having nothing to do with Donald Trump, and with her narrative eerily matching a TV show plot rather than any provable facts of the case.

By what logic was Trump fined $175 million for supposedly inflated asset valuation to obtain a loan that was repaid with interest to banks that had no complaint? Since when does the state seek to inflict such “unusual” punishments for a crime that never before had existed and never will again henceforth?

In sum, our departing weak-link generation leaves us this final Parthian shot— that when a toxic ideology so alienates the people who are rising up to prevent its continuance, then the desperate architects of such disasters can dismantle the rule of law to destroy its critics.

And so, a single generation has broken apart the great chain of American civilizational continuance. But if this weak-leak generation thinks the evil that they wrought is their last word, they should remember the warning of a great historian:

“Indeed men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.” – Thucydides 3.84.3

The above unexceptionable points adduced by Hanson will,  however, have no effect on our political enemies who — I hate to have to say it — include not only leftists but also those we used to consider friends: never-trumping so-called 'conservatives'  such as the sorry bunch over at the Bulwark. (See, for example, this piece by A. B. Stoddard.) A house divided cannot stand against external threats, and we have never been more divided.  There are dark days ahead. Time to (wo)man up, gear up, speak out, and put your money where your mouth is, but with detachment from the outcome, and steady awareness that it is all a passing scene and nothing to get too excited about. 

Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker

You and I are more like the baker than like The Donald.

Rod Dreher:

Jack Phillips is the Colorado cake baker who is constantly hauled in and out of court by lawsuits, and by actions by state officials, against him for refusing to bake specialized cakes that offend his conscience.

In 2018, one of the Christian baker’s antagonists went after him like this:

"I'm thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting," the customer wrote in the June 4 email, according to Phillips' lawsuit filed in Denver's federal court on Tuesday. "And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9" black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake."

Poor Phillips is now going to be hauled before the state Supreme Court again, in connection with this case, and his refusal to bake a cake meant to celebrate a gender transition. Guess who is now on the record backing the persecution via lawfare of this man?

Continue reading “Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker”

Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker

You and I are more like the baker than like The Donald.

Rod Dreher:

Jack Phillips is the Colorado cake baker who is constantly hauled in and out of court by lawsuits, and by actions by state officials, against him for refusing to bake specialized cakes that offend his conscience.

In 2018, one of the Christian baker’s antagonists went after him like this:

"I'm thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting," the customer wrote in the June 4 email, according to Phillips' lawsuit filed in Denver's federal court on Tuesday. "And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9" black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake."

Poor Phillips is now going to be hauled before the state Supreme Court again, in connection with this case, and his refusal to bake a cake meant to celebrate a gender transition. Guess who is now on the record backing the persecution via lawfare of this man?

Continue reading “Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker”

Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker

You and I are more like the baker than like The Donald.

Rod Dreher:

Jack Phillips is the Colorado cake baker who is constantly hauled in and out of court by lawsuits, and by actions by state officials, against him for refusing to bake specialized cakes that offend his conscience.

In 2018, one of the Christian baker’s antagonists went after him like this:

"I'm thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting," the customer wrote in the June 4 email, according to Phillips' lawsuit filed in Denver's federal court on Tuesday. "And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9" black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake."

Poor Phillips is now going to be hauled before the state Supreme Court again, in connection with this case, and his refusal to bake a cake meant to celebrate a gender transition. Guess who is now on the record backing the persecution via lawfare of this man?

Continue reading “Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker”

Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker

You and I are more like the baker than like The Donald.

Rod Dreher:

Jack Phillips is the Colorado cake baker who is constantly hauled in and out of court by lawsuits, and by actions by state officials, against him for refusing to bake specialized cakes that offend his conscience.

In 2018, one of the Christian baker’s antagonists went after him like this:

"I'm thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting," the customer wrote in the June 4 email, according to Phillips' lawsuit filed in Denver's federal court on Tuesday. "And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9" black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake."

Poor Phillips is now going to be hauled before the state Supreme Court again, in connection with this case, and his refusal to bake a cake meant to celebrate a gender transition. Guess who is now on the record backing the persecution via lawfare of this man?

Continue reading “Jubilant over Trump’s Win, Let Us not Forget the Colorado Baker”