Briefly: Never Trumps Getting The Wind Up?

The other day while commenting briefly on the SCOTUS oral arguments regarding the presidential immunity aspects of the lawfare crusade against Trump I suggested that recent oral argument sessions at the SCOTUS might indicate that the “conservative” justices are becoming alarmed at the direction the Zhou regime is taking the nation, particularly its weaponizing of the court and justice system. I cited, in particular, the very aggressive questioning of the government attorneys by CJ Roberts. New details are surfacing that make these suspicions, if not more solid, perhaps more plausible.

For example, Justice Thomas, it turns out, directly asked Trump’s attorney whether he was challenging the constitutionality of the special counsel appointment. The significance of that question is this:

In a 42-page amicus brief presented to the high court in March, Meese and Mukasey questioned whether "Jack Smith has lawful authority to undertake the 'criminal prosecution'" of Trump. Mukasey and Meese — both former U.S. attorneys general — said Smith and the Office of Special Counsel itself have no authority to prosecute, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate to any position.

Federal prosecutions, "can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices," Meese and Mukasey argued. "But neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law — whatever one may think of former President Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case."

The crux of the problem, according to Meese, is that Smith was never confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney, and no other statute allows the U.S. attorney general to name merely anyone as special counsel. Smith was acting U.S. attorney for a federal district in Tennessee in 2017, but he was never nominated to the position. He resigned from the private sector after then-President Trump nominated a different prosecutor as U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee.

Now, for another example, at the same hearing we learn that Justices Brett and Gorsuch voiced serious concern for the future of our entire constitutional order—and I don’t think I’m exaggerating:

Justice Kavanaugh Warns Of Vicious Cycle Of Malicious Prosecutions That Could End Presidency

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

During Thursday’s deliberations at the U.S. Supreme Court on former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that a decision in the case has future implications for whether future presidents are shielded from vicious cycles of malicious prosecution that could effectively end the presidency as we know it.

…

Justice Kavanaugh said that when presidents are subject to prosecution, history shows that it’s not going to stop.

“It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president ... and the next president and the next president after that.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said that the court is “writing a rule for the ages,” along with Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Kavanaugh all said that their concern was not so much the case against President Trump, but rather the effect of the ruling on future presidencies.

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Justice Kavanaugh said.

…

Justice Kavanaugh cited the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, as “one of the Court’s biggest mistakes” because it “hampered” presidential administrations. He argued that when former presidents are subjected to prosecution, this risks triggering a vicious cycle of vindictive prosecutions.

“What would the reaction be if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person?” he asked.

“Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him?”

Both articles are worth reading in their entirety if you’re a bit fuzzy on the Constitution vis a vis the dubious concept of “special” counsels or prosecutors.

The concern expressed by the justices appears to be heightened to almost palpable fear, even among Never Trumps, including slimes like Bluto Barr. Roger Kimball covers this aspect, noting his impression of “an out-and-out tone of alarm” even among the Never Trumps. It could be that they’re coming to the realization that being a Never Trump—even having stabbed the Orange Man in the back—doesn’t guarantee immunity from crazed lawfare specialists of the Left:

Shock and Awe on the Campaign Trail

A Rubicon has been crossed, and advance troops are already besieging various outposts of our taken-for-granted institutions and assumptions about our social lives.

Kimball nails the exact nature of their concern—self preservation. Even rats have that:

Note well: The primary fulcrum of this change is not an assessment of the relative merits of Trump vs. Biden. Rather, it’s a reaction against the perversion of the DOJ and the coercive power of the state under Biden. Trump is the most obvious victim. But any opponent of the regime is a potential target.

“Shock and Awe” is the popular phrase military folks use to describe a strategy of using “spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy’s perception of the battlefield and destroy their will to fight.”

That is a good description of what the Biden administration is attempting to do to Donald Trump.

And not just Donald Trump. Their aim is to steam roll all opposition and even all dissent. Kimball goes through some of the details of the lawfare cases against Trump (and some is quite interesting), but then urges readers to clear their minds of all that and consider two salient points that have emerged with documentary evidence to support them:

And note these two points:

1. “The timing of these cases was coordinated to inflict maximum inconvenience and cost on Trump, and to make it impossible for him to campaign actively.”

2. “State and federal prosecutors met in the White House to refine their cases and for purposes that have never been disclosed.”

The timing was coordinated. State and federal prosecutors met in the White House to refine their cases. 

Why are people not up in arms over these revelations? We are not talking about something that is happening in Bolivia or Venezuela. It is happening right now here in the United States of America. The regime party is coordinating with the instruments of legal enforcement and the media to keep the chief opposition candidate off the campaign trail and make it impossible for people to vote for him. That party is also actively attempting to bankrupt him.  As Spivak notes, “No sitting or former president of the United States has ever before been indicted, let alone faced a coordinated, multi-layered legal attack.”

And here’s where the survival instinct comes in. Donald Trump may be all that stands between Never Trumps and bankruptcy or jail for themselves:

If the regime party succeeds in taking down its chief opponent, it will be open season on all of us.  Spivak is correct: “The United States is now seeking to financially destroy and incarcerate a former president who is also the leading opposition candidate for that office. This is what happens in Third World countries, which routinely confiscate assets of and imprison, the opposition. Regardless of whether Trump prevails in his trials, America has crossed a line from its republican past into something very ugly.” Verbum sapienti satis est: i.e., don’t say you weren’t warned.

Yes, they were warned. Now they fear for their freedom and financial stability.