Issues & Insights

What The Trump Indictments Are Really All About (Hint: Not What You Think)

Let’s cut to the chase: the tsunami of anti-Trump indictments isn’t aimed to ensure that he is the 2024 GOP nominee, nor to stymie him with a tangle of competing, distracting, and wildly expensive court battles at the height of primary season. Though either could be the result.

This scribe informed you, last summer, of the purpose of the scorched-earth campaign that also encompasses the January 6th Committee farce, psychological terrorism against Capitol protesters, and harassment of former Trump officials and advisors. 

Quoting your correspondent back then: “(T)his overkill is really about inoculating Democrats regarding efforts already underway to rig elections in 2022 and beyond. The precedent is set: identifying future Democrat-favoring voting irregularities risks being labeled a promoter of Trump-variety ‘false claims’ and plagued, persecuted, or even prosecuted as an ‘insurrectionist.’”

You know the charges being brought against America’s rightful chief executive, his advisers, and his allies are as genuine as dime-store pyrite when an individual who has committed no espionage is charged with 31 counts under the rarely used Espionage Act – once hammered by the ACLU as “a fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional law.”

Or when a federal Special Counsel slams the same individual with vague charges of conspiracies to “Defraud the United States,” to “Obstruct an Official Proceeding,” and “Against Rights,” plus “Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.” All based on allegedly asserting “knowingly false claims (of) outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

And when requests for phone numbers, appearances at legislative hearings, tweets about those public hearings, press conferences, and a nationally televised presidential speech(!) are all considered “overt act(s) in furtherance of (a) conspiracy” under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Allegedly committed by a “criminal enterprise” including highly respected attorneys, the White House chief of staff, elected officials acting in investigative capacities, and a PR guy. 

If governments at all levels, to maintain their hold on power, can coordinate the criminalization of:

  • hush money payments regarding a one-night stand made under a valid legal settlement
  • exercise of presidential discretion established by Congress and determined by federal courts to be nearly absolute
  • privileged legal advice to, and public or private political advocacy on behalf of, the sitting chief executive
  • lobbying state and federal officers to engage in investigations and/or consider legal or constitutional theories, no matter how novel
  • entering the Capitol during a protest on the open invitation of, and accompanied by, law enforcement officers – and in some cases, simply being nearby
  • and most of all, engaging in the constitutionally protected right of free speech …

… then who will risk representing or even speaking out on behalf of victims of stolen elections, knowing the cost could be humiliation (e.g., planned arrest and release of mug shots of the Georgia defendants), crushing expensecareer jeopardy, and potential deprivation of freedom (pre-detention solitary for January 6 defendants, all the Georgia defendants facing mandatory prison terms)?

Though there’s a high degree of ad hominem animus here, remember: the term “derangement syndrome” was coined around similar antipathy toward the White House’s prior Republican occupant – now affectionately embraced by leftists.

Whether this melodrama’s central figure was named Donald Trump or Donald Duck, the true objective is nth-degree cancellation. Not of those targeted by blatant abuses of power. But of the Constitution and consent of the governed.

Especially when the actions’ basis – alleged “false statements (Georgia)” and “knowingly false claims (of) outcome-determinative fraud” – is itself “knowingly false” and misleading

Stipulated: mountains of evidence exist of election fraud, exemplified in respected political scientist Claes Ryn’s definitive analysis shortly after the election and recently related to the Georgia charges in these pages and elsewhere

But as this contributor also previously underscored, The Donald needn’t prove fraud to cast sufficient doubt on the election outcome to bury the core charge.

He must only demonstrate that votes were cast outside of lawful processes intended to avoid fraud – the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s essential holding in declaring that illegal election changes rendered the state’s 2020 result “illegitimate.”

petition to the U.S. Supreme Court by 18 states insisted that irregularities in said Badger State and three others “cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election.” 

And that “these flaws affect an outcome-determinative number (emphasis added, Special Counsel Smith) of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes.”

Moreover, High Court Justice Samuel Alito asserted that a separate Pennsylvania challenge had “national importance,” citing “a strong likelihood that (a) State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

Let’s summarize: Wisconsin’s highest court declared its 2020 results “illegitimate.” A Supreme Court justice sniffed state constitutional violations. And eighteen state attorneys general asserted that no one could know who won in 2020 due to state electoral “flaws.” 

Yet Trump et. al. engaged in “knowingly false claims” sufficient to sustain indictments that could result in lifetimes behind bars?

Quod erat demonstrandum: these abusive legal actions aren’t intended to vindicate truth nor preserve the electoral process. But rather to ensure that, repeating Sen. Lindsey Graham’s November 2020 warning, “there’ll never be another Republican president elected again.”

Bob Maistros is a messaging and communications strategist, crisis specialist, and former political speechwriter. He can be reached at

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.



  • ‘ Moreover, High Court Justice Samuel Alito asserted that a separate Pennsylvania challenge had “national importance,” citing “a strong likelihood that (a) State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.” ‘

    Here’s the background on exactly how the Democrats stole the election in Pennsylvania in 2020.

    In 2020, the Pennsylvania and US Supreme Courts essentially rewrote the state election law to mean the opposite of what the law actually said. That law had a provision that allowed expanded mail-in ballots, but only if the other provisions in the law were followed. If any of the other rules were broken, then the ballots were no good.

    The state Supreme Court extended the deadline for mail-in voting from Tuesday 8:00 p.m. (Election Day, November 3) to 5:00 p.m. Friday, and cited COVID-19 as the reason. This directly rewrote the law – Act 77, to be specific – as Tuesday and Friday are not the same day, no matter how eloquent the lawyers who argued in front of the Supreme Court may have been. Yes, they did indeed count ballots that arrived three days after the election, as bizarre as that sounds.

    There was also a provision that required that all mail-in ballots must have a legible postmark. The courts threw this out and said that ballots with no postmark at all still counted as “mail-in” ballots.

    This makes the three-day extension even worse, as the Democrats can’t even claim that the postmarks prove that the ballots were cast before the election. It was quite possible for somebody to collect blank ballots, fill them out for Biden on Wednesday or Thursday or early Friday, and make sure that they somehow arrived before 5:00 on Friday evening to be counted.

    Biden was officially credited with winning 50.01% of the votes in that election. Yes, a majority plus 0.01%. Hmm.

    These changes were clearly in violation of the provision that the rules must be followed, so all mail-in ballots should have been tossed. All mail-in ballots, not just the ones that arrived after Tuesday night, according to the very act that authorized them! The US Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on this issue just before the election, and that was a mistake that they must surely regret.

    If you doubt that the state legislature outranks the state Supreme Court on election law, then read this:

    “Article I, Section 4

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

    That’s the United States Constitution. Only idiots would argue that the state legislature has no authority to overrule the state Supreme Court about the “Times” of the “Elections”. Every ballot had candidates for a Representative, and also for President and Vice-President, on it, so all ballots cast are covered by this section.

    BTW, the penalty for any sort of ballot fraud is up to one year in prison and a $1000 fine, per count.

    The penalty for this sort of mail fraud is up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, per count.

    That’s why Democrats love drop boxes and hate mailboxes.

    The four most relevant paragraphs of Supreme Court Justice Alito’s opinion are available here, with the legal references removed to improve clarity and readability, and the most important phrases highlighted:

    It’s a quick read, just four paragraphs. The MSM is deliberately silent, and never mentions that the election rules in Pennsylvania were flipped upside down, by votes of 4-3 and a tied vote of 4-4 in the PA and US Supreme Courts respectively, just before the election, when they cover Trump’s legal persecutions.

    More on this subject is available at

  • Heh, what a mess!
    The way things are going, it seems to me you Cousins are going to need your Second Amendment sooner rather than later!

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: