A Theory As Good As Any
And probably better than most. It’s put forward in an article at Red State by Jim Thompson:
Best of all, it’s elegantly written, lucidly presented.
Thompson begins by reviewing Smith’s prosecution of VA governor Bob McDonnell. His account of that case includes a tidbit I wasn’t previously aware of:
McDonnell was charged with 14 counts. Those counts included honest services wire fraud, obtaining property under “color of official right,” and extortion under “color of official right.” Like most DOJ attorneys with the power of the US government at their fingertips, charging McDonnell and his wife wasn’t enough. Smith’s team threatened to arrest McDonnell’s children if the governor and his wife discussed the case with them.
There’s irony in the “honest services fraud” charge, in that a strong case could be made that Smith and his team deprived the government of its right to their honest services. The conviction—of course—was tossed by the SCOTUS, 9-0. Let’s see, that happened to Andrew Weissmann, too, didn’t it? But from Smith’s and DoJ’s point of view the case remained a success—they got their man. McDonnell had been a rising GOP star and the case ruined his political career. Mission accomplished.
So what’s the mission in the Trump case? Thompson maintains that it can’t possibly be to get a conviction that will stick. The McDonnell case and other recent SCOTUS cases show that the SCOTUS will not tolerate DoJ jackboots trampling the Constitution. Smith got the indictments knowing that he was thumbing his nose at the SCOTUS. It was bad faith:
Smith’s charging document is really an out-of-office impeachment dressed as a criminal indictment.
…
In May, the [SCOTUS] unanimously found that the DOJ was expanding the definition of criminal “fraud” beyond the bounds intended and written by Congress. In Ciminelli v. United States, penned by Justice Thomas, and Percoco v. United States, written by Justice Alito, the court reversed both convictions 9-0, in essence telling the DOJ that it cannot invent new definitions for criminal statutes not clearly intended by Congress. In fact, in concurrences by Gorsuch and Thomas, the Justices opined that not only were jury instructions open-ended, the fraud statutes were hopelessly vague and invalid.
Thompson argues that Smith’s mission—given to him by the Zhou regime’s lawfare department—is twofold, but with one end in view. The goal is to smear Trump, but also to smear the SCOTUS, to provide the Dems with a campaign issue—Constitution be damned:
Smith wants this trial to be front-page news and led on cable news before the 2024 election. Smith expects Trump to be convicted because this is a DC. Trump could be charged with lying about his golf score based on “fraud,” and a DC jury would gladly convict. Smith isn’t dumb. He expects his conviction to be vacated. In fact, he’s counting on it.
That’s #1. Here’s #2:
Smith is pushing for an early trial date not to provide a quick resolution and to “do justice”; rather, Smith wants a partisan DC jury to quickly convict Trump, thus setting up Smith’s next level of political gamesmanship. Smith wants Trump’s conviction to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court, knowing full well that a Trump conviction has no chance of affirmation at SCOTUS. Smith is counting on it. Smith wants the Supreme Court to vacate his almost certain conviction in order to enflame the Democratic base. He wants to hand Joe Biden another “the Supreme Court is illegitimate” gift.
It’s a pretty interesting theory, although probably unprovable. It’s a risky move, if true, because it could backfire in a big way. The Dems have definitely been working the “the SCOTUS is illegitimate” meme very hard. On the other hand, polling shows that that’s likely a losing issue—Americans, for whatever reasons, don’t want the Court packed, don’t want anything about the Court changed, don’t like the Court being trashed. A move like this would enflame the Dem base, but they’re always enflamed anyway. If true, it certainly suggests desparation.
It’s a good read if for no other reason than to drive home how debased our court system and criminal justice system have become.
The process is the punishment. It diverts Trumps attention, just as the impeachments did. Its goal is to hobble his election campaign. And Smith has already started ratcheting up the intensity with his request for a protective order, due to “Trumps Threat”.
I wonder if Trump is baiting Smith to over react?
Trump has an amazing ability to make the Left and Never Trumpers lose it, ripping the masks of civility, fairness, and competence they wear disguising their true, horrible, biased, angry, incompetent selves.
Not so ironic Mark! The Dersh has spoken:
“You know the worst thing about this indictment, under the terms of this indictment, Jack Smith can be indicted. Let me explain to you why,” Dershowitz said. “The statute says the following, two or more persons conspire to injure and deny somebody the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured him by the constitution. What if a court ultimately rules that Donald Trump had a right under the First Amendment to make his Jan. 6 speech and to do what he did? Then Jack Smith will have conspired to deny him of that right. That’s how serious this is.”
Hope springs eternal.