This SitRep will focus on the intense battle now ongoing in the United States involving Donald Trump, an American electorate in revolt, and the desperate effort to silence them ahead of the 2024 elections through a complete corruption of the American constitutional system.

The lawfare attack on Trump waged by the Biden Justice Department in Washington, D.C., and District Attorneys in Manhattan and Atlanta, aims to put him in prison before the election in 2024. This effort has so far resulted only in dramatically increasing Trump’s support. But it has also put the law and the Constitution itself into serious danger, delegitimizing the very potential which binds this Republic together. In their linear war-plans, the lawfare Jacobins believe they can secure one or more convictions in their four-front attack, and defeat any appeals except for what might happen at the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the reason for the very shrill campaign, which reemerged this week, seeking to further delegitimize and intimidate that court.

In a series of posts, starting with this Sitrep, I will be addressing the legal philosophies which have governed the lawfare attack on Donald Trump and this nation since 2015, a legal regime which came into its present form after September 11, 2001. Those legal philosophies found their most recent and deadly expression in the writings of Carl Schmitt, crown jurist of Hitler’s Third Reich—the man who crafted the legal legitimacy of the Hitler regime. Schmitt sponsored the emigration of his student Leo Strauss to the United States through the Rockefeller Foundation. Through Strauss and his neo-conservative and neo-liberal admirers, Schmitt has been revived in this country, the fawned-upon subject of numerous law review and political science treatises and “radical” political discussion on both the nominal right and left,

But the philosophical viewpoint is as old as Thrasymachus’ argument in Plato’s Republic. We who have the power should be free to exercise it as we want, unchecked by any law or Constitution, for the noble ends we perceive – in this case, the need to rid the nation and ourselves of the rabble-rouser Donald Trump, and the rabble who support him. Like the ruler Lycurgus in Friedrich Schiller’s essay, “The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon” and Carl Schmitt, our current ruling utopians believe they have designed the perfect slave state under the twin and empty phrases, “wokeness” and “equity.”  They believe that the vast mass of humanity are feral animals, to be herded, culled, and fenced by a variety of totalitarian measures. They, like Schmitt, use artificially created emergency conditions, “a state of exception” in Schmitt’s words, to force the population into accepting their edicts and rules.

By contrast and despite revisionist history, our founders believed that humans are endowed with God’s divine and creative powers of mind and that governments must be designed to create the conditions of sustained growth and progress in the development of mind. They emulated Solon in Schiller’s famous essay, and settled, uniquely and radically, on government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In recent days, Trump has shifted his campaign back to the insurgent and potentially revolutionary stance it had in 2016—campaigning on behalf of the aroused and disenfranchised working poor and working and middle classes. The globalist oligarchy, those who think of themselves as such and speak in British-tinged accents, along with their retainers and oligarchical wannabees in the nation’s media, law, and tech firms, foundations, and multi-national corporations, are at war with Trump and those who support or potentially support Trump—that is, the majority of Americans.

Donald Trump is taking on both the extant Republican and Democratic Parties in his steadfast opposition to the war in Ukraine and U.S. imperial wars generally, in his dedication to a future which reindustrializes the United States on an advanced scientific and infrastructure platform and ends the insane Green energy agenda, and in his defense of national sovereignty for all nations against the globalist financier oligarchy.   He has concretized many of his plans for his second term in short video statements comprising his “Agenda 47.” Last week’s leaked stories featured Trump and Tucker Carlson getting together to sponsor actual presidential debates about the nation’s future, outflanking the recent effort to silence both Carlson and Trump by the very British Murdochs and Fox News.

The Democrats’ lawfare warriors believe they have complete control of the relevant trial and appeals courts in New York City, where Trump has been indicted in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case, and in Washington, D.C. where the jack-booted Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, will seek indictments for Trump’s allegedly overdue government documents stored at Mar-a-Lago and for the government-staged riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.  They control Atlanta DA Fani T. Willis, who wants to indict Trump for challenging the 2020 election results in Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia is loyal to Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp, who is a never-Trumper of the first order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped forward several times in recent years to void prominent criminal convictions, particularly those involving novel criminal and constitutional legal theories like those implicated in the present attack against Trump. The Enron case and the case of former Virginia Governor Robert MacDonald are prime examples. The lawfare Jacobins are hysterical at what they view as this unpredictable prospect. The Court must, therefore, be intimidated and cowed into a cowardly acceptance of Donald Trump’s lawfare assassination at any cost.

Don’t assume that the linear scenario painted by the lawfare insurgents will go forward as they plan it. The political climate is already extremely volatile and turbulent, and soon the Biden Administration will face a lost war in Ukraine, continuing deep financial turmoil, continuing criminal anarchy in the nation’s largest cities, and burgeoning death tolls based on uncontrolled fentanyl and other toxic drugs. This on top of the evident fact that everything they try against Trump blows up in popular furor and exposure of them. As they say in modern slang descriptions of natural law, “karma is a bitch.”

Witnesses are stepping forward to the Congress who may make any attempted whitewash of Biden family crimes impossible. A senior IRS whistleblower has stepped forward to tell Congress that the Justice Department, including Attorney General Garland, has compromised the tax and money-laundering investigation of Hunter Biden—and that he or she can prove it. An FBI whistleblower insists that he has seen evidence putting Joe Biden himself at the center of a foreign bribery scheme. There will be a massive crisis at the southern border as Title 42 expires. The “twitter files” disclosures have unveiled and exposed a massive world-wide censorship apparatus, just at the point where legislation putting it firmly in permanent place was on the table here, and in Canada, Europe, Ireland, and Brazil.

This climate challenges the docility, cowardice, and secrecy necessary to advance the lawfare scheme among the witting. In great crises the unexpected happens, often through people who step forward because their conscience requires it.

If the scenario does go forward as planned and the Supreme Court itself cowers when it is tested, it will not only delegitimize the nation’s highest court, but also create a first-order constitutional crisis. Donald Trump would have to win the election and then pardon himself to avoid prison. The electorate would have to deliver the election to Trump overwhelmingly, to prevent the nation’s being riven asunder by this prospect.

The most enduring weapon for the battle we face is the education of the broad-based insurgency now in motion against the regime across all former “party” lines. Americans must learn to reflexively think like our founders, and like Solon, Schiller, and LaRouche. That is the mission of LaRouche PAC.

The Attack on the Court

Many will recall the clarion call against the Court delivered by Senator Chuck Schumer at the beginning of this campaign in March of 2020. Attending a pro-abortion rally outside the Court, Schumer publicly threatened Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name—both appointed by Donald Trump—saying they had “reaped the whirlwind” and would "pay the price."  When the Dobbs v. Jackson abortion case came before the Court in its 2022 term, Justice Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press in May, something which had never happened before.  This set off nationwide demonstrations aimed at changing the Justices’ ultimate votes in Dobbs, or physically eliminating Supreme Court justices.

The far-left anarchist group, “Jane’s Revenge” attacked, burned, and vandalized numerous crisis pregnancy-counseling centers staffed by right-to-life organizers and the Catholic Church, with virtually no response from the U.S. Department of Justice. Instead, the DOJ was conducting the largest manhunt in its history to track down and arrest anyone who trespassed on U.S. Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021.

On June 8, 2022, Nicholas Roske was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home after flying across the country with a plan to assassinate Kavanaugh and two other justices. He had a newly purchased Glock pistol, ammunition, and burglary tools. He said he was going to change the vote in Dobbs, and that assassinating a Supreme Court justice would give his life meaning. When the Dobbs decision came down later that month, demonstrations continued nightly outside justices’ homes, while the DOJ failed to prosecute extant laws barring such demonstrations, amidst generally lax security. Now the justices and their families travel with bodyguards, in vehicles they compare to tanks.

A Case in Point, the Proud Boys Frameup

Carl Schmitt revised the German criminal code to allow for convictions based on seditious thoughts, whether they resulted in actions or not. On Thursday, a DC jury delivered its expected “seditious conspiracy” conviction of the leaders of the Proud Boys for their activities on January 6^th. The guilty verdicts were largely based on thoughts expressed in social media messages received by the defendants, and steered by government informants, rather than on any concrete action defendants took. Until the Biden Justice Department’s January 6 prosecutions, no American had ever been convicted under the post-Civil War “seditious conspiracy” statute. Many believe that this prosecution was a precursor to how Special Counsel Jack Smith will charge Donald Trump for the events of January 6. The Proud Boys established a social media trail portraying themselves as “Trump’s army,” a line echoed by Biden in the presidential debates in 2020. When Biden demanded that Trump tell the Proud Boys not to participate in violence, Trump responded sarcastically, “Proud Boys, stand by and Stand Down.”

As Julie Kelly has so diligently documented, this trial was a constitutional nightmare.  The DC jury pool was tainted both by its obvious Democratic bias, and by the overwrought “Congressional January 6^th Committee” docudrama, which was well-received only in DC.  The Judge, Timothy Kelly, although appointed by Trump, is a swamp-creature, and gave the prosecutors unprecedented latitude to convict defendants based on guilt by association, multiple levels of hearsay, and social-media traffic addressed to them. Mid-trial it was revealed that up to 50 government informants from various agencies had infiltrated the Proud Boys by January 6^th, including informants who had penetrated the legal defense team, and were even on the defense witness list.

Beyond inflammatory social media rhetoric, the government’s main evidence consisted of January 6^th actions of other Proud Boys members who had little or no connection to the defendants on trial. Even the New York Times recognized the extralegal nature of the prosecution’s case: “Judge Kelly’s rulings allowed prosecutors to introduce damning evidence about the violent behavior and aggressive language of members of the Proud Boys who had only limited connections to the five defendants. The rulings also permitted jurors to convict on conspiracy even if they found there was no plan to disrupt the certification of the election, but merely an unspoken agreement to do so.”

To Be Continued...