Lawfare is a One Way Street
Segment #846
Prove me Wrong
Stephen A Smith goes in on democrats using the law to stop Donald Trump. Donald Trump has indictments across the board from corrupt DA's and Stephen A Smith does a great job of pointing out how reckless their actions are. It's so obvious that Donald Trump is being politically persecuted that if even Stephen A Smith is pointing it out, everyone else can see it too
Dems You Are Lying - The entire "Russian Collusion" narrative was a paid-for fabrication by the Clinton campaign. You used the FBI and FISA courts to spy on a rival based on the Steele Dossier, a document you knew was fiction. You lied to the American public for four years to paralyze a presidency, and the Durham Report proved it.
Dems You Have No Credibility - Your legal "theories" were so thin they evaporated under the slightest constitutional scrutiny. The Ballot Hits: You tried to disenfranchise millions by kicking the leading candidate off the ballot. The Supreme Court crushed you 9-0, proving your "insurrection" theory was a fringe legal fantasy. The "Zombie" Cases: From Alvin Bragg’s resurrected misdemeanors to Jack Smith’s unconstitutional appointment, your cases weren't about justice—they were about election interference. The Immunity Blow: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States exposed your attempts to criminalize official presidential acts as a direct assault on the Separation of Powers.
Dems The "Jail" Standard: Equal Justice - You spent years chanting "no one is above the law" while giving a total pass to the Biden family’s foreign influence peddling and Hillary Clinton’s private server. If the standard of "no one is above the law" actually applied to you, the prosecutors and bureaucrats who conspired to deprive a citizen of his civil rights through malicious prosecution would be the ones facing indictments. By weaponizing the DOJ, you didn't "save democracy"—you became the very threat you claimed to be fighting.
The Federal "Election Interference" & "Classified Documents" Cases
Investigations into the 2016 Campaign (The "Russia Probe")
The earliest and most frequently cited example involves the investigations into the 2016 Trump campaign.
The Steele Dossier: Critics point to the use of opposition research (funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign) to obtain FISA warrants from the FBI to surveil campaign affiliates like Carter Page. The "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation: The original FBI probe into 2016 campaign ties to Russia. Cited as the "original lawfare" due to the use of the Steele Dossier and FISA warrants.
The Mueller Investigation: While it led to several indictments of campaign associates (mostly for process crimes like lying to investigators), the Right viewed the nearly two-year probe as a way to paralyze the presidency and delegitimize the 2016 election results. A nearly two-year investigation that led to numerous "process crime" indictments (lying to investigators) against allies like Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone.
Status: FAILED/DISMISSED
Analysis: These cases are viewed as the most egregious examples of the Department of Justice being "weaponized."
Classified Documents Case (Florida): Though later dismissed by a judge in 2024, the initial raid on Mar-a-Lago and subsequent charges were viewed by the Right as a selective prosecution, especially when compared to how other officials handled sensitive documents.The Immunity Ruling: In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity for core constitutional acts. Conservative scholars at the National Review hailed this as a massive win for the separation of powers, effectively gutting Jack Smith’s D.C. case.
The Appointments Clause: The Florida documents case was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon in July 2024. She ruled that Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional because he was not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate. This is cited by the Right as a major victory against "unaccountable" bureaucratic power.
Impeachments
It's never too late to contribute to Stephen's favorite hashtag, #HeWhoShallBeNamed, especially if you're former President Barack Obama who reportedly describes his successor with the kind of words we're not supposed to say on CBS.
Impeachment I: The "Ukraine Phone Call" (2019-2020)
The Conservative View: This was seen as a "pretextual" impeachment designed to protect the interests of the "Deep State" and the Biden family.
The Charge: Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress regarding a phone call with President Zelenskyy.
The "Lawfare" Argument: Critics on the Right argued that the "whistleblower" at the center of the case had partisan ties and that the House denied the President basic due process, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses in the initial hearings.
The Outcome:FAILED. The Senate acquitted the President on February 5, 2020. Conservative analysts, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, argued the acquittal was a victory against the attempt to criminalize standard foreign policy negotiations.
Impeachment II: The "January 6th" Proceedings (2021)
The Conservative View: This was characterized as a "Snap Impeachment"—a rushed, purely emotional process that bypassed traditional evidentiary hearings and focused on "incitement" that did not meet the legal standard of the Brandenburg test for protected speech.
The Charge: Incitement of Insurrection.
The "Lawfare" Argument: * Due Process: The Right argued that the House moved to impeach in just one week without a single hearing or investigation, creating a dangerous precedent for "lightning impeachments."
Constitutional Limits: Many conservative legal experts (including several Republican Senators) argued that it was unconstitutional to impeach a private citizen once they had already left office.
The Outcome:FAILED. Although more Republicans joined the Democrats than in the first impeachment, the Senate again failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for conviction on February 13, 2021.
The 14th Amendment J6 "Insurrection" Challenges
Federal Election Interference Case: Brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding January 6th. Critics argue this criminalizes political speech and legal challenges to election results.
Status: FAILED (Unanimously Overturned)
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) defended Jack Smith from attacks by Republicans and revealed that some House Republicans privately call President Trump a "scumbag."
A House Judiciary Committee hearing turned explosive as Rep. Brandon Gill grilled former special counsel Jack Smith over the subpoena of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s phone records. Gill cited court filings and nondisclosure orders, accusing Smith of misleading the court and violating the Speech or Debate Clause. The heated exchange raised sharp questions about prosecutorial conduct, transparency, and the use of federal power in high-profile investigations tied to President Donald Trump.
Conservative Analysis: Attempts by Colorado and Maine to remove Trump from the ballot were seen as a direct assault on democracy. The ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) represented the defense here. The Supreme Court's 9-0 reversal in Trump v. Anderson is cited as the ultimate proof that these efforts were legally frivolous and purely political. Legal efforts in Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and other states to remove Trump from the ballot as an "insurrectionist." The Supreme Court ultimately ruled these efforts unconstitutional.
Post-Presidency Criminal Indictments and Lawsuits
The New York "Hush Money" Case
The Manhattan "Hush Money" Case: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg elevated what would normally be a misdemeanor for "falsifying business records" into 34 felonies. Critics argued this relied on a "novel" legal theory specifically designed to target Trump.
Status: MIXED (Conviction followed by Sentencing Delays)
Analysis: While a jury returned a guilty verdict, conservative legal experts (such as Andrew McCarthy) argue the case was "legal duct tape." They point out that the DA, Alvin Bragg, never specified the underlying crime until the very end of the trial, violating the defendant's right to notice. Following the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, the sentencing was delayed multiple times. From a conservative standpoint, this case succeeded in getting a "headline" but failed to survive the smell test of constitutional due process.
The New York Civil Fraud Case (Letitia James)
New York Civil Fraud Case: Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump and his business for overvaluing assets. The resulting $450M+ judgment was criticized because there were no "victims" (the banks were repaid with interest), leading to claims that the law was weaponized for political punishment
Status: PARTIAL SUCCESS for Prosecutors / FAILED Narrative
Analysis: Although a massive $454 million judgment was leveled against Trump, the Wall Street Journal editorial board and others pointed out that there were no victims—the banks involved testified they were happy with the business and were paid back. The appeals court later significantly lowered the required bond, which the Right views as a sign that the original judgment was an "unconstitutional excess."
The Georgia RICO Case (Fani Willis)
Georgia RICO Case: Fani Willis’s use of racketeering laws to charge Trump and 18 others for challenging the 2020 election results was seen as an attempt to criminalize standard political activity.
Status: STALLED / FAILED Credibility
Analysis: This case is viewed as a "clown show" in conservative circles. The revelation of Fani Willis’s romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade led to a series of disqualification hearings. Conservative commentators argue the case has effectively collapsed under the weight of its own ethical scandals and the 2024 election results, making it a functional failure for the "Lawfare" movement.
E. Jean Carroll Defamation Suits:
High-profile civil suits resulting in nearly $90 million in damages were viewed by the Right as a coordinated effort to keep the former president in courtrooms rather than on the campaign trail. Two separate civil trials resulting in roughly $88 million in damages. Critics view the rapid-fire nature of these suits and the changing of NY law (the Adult Survivors Act) as specifically timed to allow these claims
Status: On Appeal
Analysis: E. Jean Carroll:ORCHESTRATED. Possible only because of a "custom-made" NY law (the ASA) and funded by billionaire Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman. Critics point to the 30-year delay and lack of evidence as proof of a political hit job.
Attempts at Ballot Disqualification
In late 2023 and early 2024, several states (notably Colorado and Maine) attempted to remove Trump from the primary ballot using the 14th Amendment's "Insurrectionist Clause."
The Supreme Court eventually overturned these efforts unanimously, but the Right cited the initial attempts as the ultimate form of lawfare: trying to remove a candidate from the ballot entirely through judicial decrees.
5. Targeting of Legal Counsel and Allies
Critics also point to "lawfare" directed at the lawyers who represented the Right:
Disbarment Proceedings: Efforts to disbar or sanction lawyers like Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman for their work on 2020 election challenges.
Lawfare Project: Some conservative groups have highlighted organizations that specifically aim to "bankrupt" conservative lawyers through continuous ethics complaints and lawsuits.
The "Backfire" Effect
Gov Walz has presided over at least 9billion dollars in fraud as Gov of Minnesota… and he complains about Trump being a King and not following teh law
Conservative analysts argue that the ultimate "failure" of lawfare was political rather than legal. Instead of disqualifying the candidate, the perceived unfairness of these cases served to unify the Right and contributed to his 2024 victory. The Heritage Foundation notes that the use of "nationwide injunctions" and "novel legal theories" has only led to a stronger push for judicial reform to prevent these tactics in the future.
1. The Criminal Cases: "Weaponization & Collapse"
The Federal Cases (Jack Smith):FAILED. The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling dismantled the D.C. case, and Judge Cannon dismissed the Florida documents case as unconstitutional. Critics call these "Election Interference" via prosecution.
The Manhattan Case (Alvin Bragg):STALLED. Labeled a "zombie case" by the Right, it relied on a novel legal theory to turn expired misdemeanors into felonies. Post-election, the case has effectively evaporated.
The Georgia RICO Case (Fani Willis):IMPLODED. Widely mocked as a "clown show," the case collapsed under the weight of Willis’s ethical scandals and romantic entanglements with her lead prosecutor.
2. The Civil Suits: "Law as an Extortion Tool"
NY Civil Fraud (Letitia James):ABSURD. A "victimless crime" where banks were paid in full and testified in favor of the defense. The Right views the $454M judgment as a state-sponsored attempt at asset seizure.
E. Jean Carroll:ORCHESTRATED. Possible only because of a "custom-made" NY law (the ASA) and funded by billionaire Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman. Critics point to the 30-year delay and lack of evidence as proof of a political hit job.
3. The 14th Amendment: "Anti-Democratic Overreach"
Ballot Removal:DEFEATED. The Supreme Court’s 9-0 reversal of the Colorado ruling proved that the effort to kick a leading candidate off the ballot was a fringe legal fantasy that threatened the Republic's stability.
4. The Impeachments: "The Ultimate Lawfare"
Impeachment I & II:FAILED. Viewed as partisan "annulments" of the 2016 election. The Right argues these normalized the weaponization of a constitutional process for "process crimes" and protected the interests of the permanent bureaucracy (the "Deep State").
Ilhan Omar who has married and then divorced her brother, presided over $9 million dollars in fraud from her district in Minnesota, and pledge allegiance to Somali over the USA even though she is a representative in Congress has said along with other Dem leaders that once they get back in power they will seek lawfare prosecutions as revenge all over again
Critics argue that Ilhan Omar’s primary allegiance is to Somalia, not the United States, citing her January 2024 speech where she declared herself "Somali first" and vowed to use her seat in Congress to protect Somalia’s territorial interests against Ethiopia. To her detractors, this isn't just advocacy; it’s a blatant admission that she views her legislative power as a tool for a foreign nation, effectively subordinating American interests to the geopolitical goals of the Somali government.
Furthermore, critics point to a documented history of alleged fraud as proof of her disregard for American law. The unresolved evidence suggesting she married her brother to bypass U.S. immigration vetting—a claim she has never transparently refuted—is viewed as a fundamental breach of the oath of citizenship. When coupled with her political ties to the "Feeding Our Future" defendants and her aggressive opposition to federal crackdowns on the massive $250 million fraud scheme in her district, critics see a representative who prioritizes the enrichment and protection of her ethnic enclave over the legal and financial integrity of the United States.
