Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, and probably many other people, are not pleased that President Trump is continuing to wage lawfare, depending on what you include in the term “lawfare.” Is the indictment of James Comey lawfare or an entirely proper prosecution of a man who sought to derail Trump’s first term with the Russia collusion hoax?
Trump said during the campaign that his “retribution” for the legal attacks on him would be winning and making the country successful. He had every right to be angry: he must have spent tens of millions defending against nonsense charges. Despite all the charges, clearly the American people wanted Trump back in the White House, and just as clearly the Democrats wanted to stop that from happening. Hence the endless lawfare, which, as now even Democrats must realize, may have played a significant role in re-electing him. Ha!
But the Democrats’ lawfare hasn’t ended yet, so why should Trump stop going after his enemies? He should make their campaigns against him as expensive as he can.
It’s true that the judgment against Trump in the New York case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, forcing him to pay nearly half a billion dollars, was vacated by a New York State appeals court (the second-highest court in the state), but the court upheld the fraud conviction, which is nonsense—as was the whole affair. James had campaigned on “getting” Trump before she had even found a “crime” to pin on him. Apparently, that meant nothing to a majority of the judges.
On social media, Trump called the appellate division’s decision a “total victory.” But of course, it wasn’t. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the court’s decision was that a majority of the judges did not recognize that no crime had been committed. How many businessmen are squirming as a result of that decision, and how many are thinking of relocating their businesses out of New York State?
Trump will appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, but can anyone be sure he will get justice there?
And what about now? How has Trump’s attempt at “winning and making the country successful” been going?
In the first four weeks of his administration, at least 74 lawsuits were filed against his policies, 58 of which were brought in federal district courts in Washington, Boston, Seattle, and Maryland. Those courts have a majority of activist judges nominated by Democrat presidents, and cases from those courts go to appeals courts, also packed with judges nominated by Democrats.
In total, since his second administration began, according to the New York Times, hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s policies. The New York Times has tracked 401 of these lawsuits, at least 167 of which (more than 40 percent) were brought in federal district courts in the same places named above: Washington, Boston, Seattle, and Maryland.
So far, plaintiffs have won in only two of the cases, while at least 37 have been dismissed.
Not that the Democrats have been successful on appeal either: as of September 10, the Trump administration has filed 25 emergency applications to the Supreme Court, where the justices have ruled in his favor 18 times (72 percent). Some of those victories were
So, Trump may be winning the lawsuits, but every victory is an uphill struggle and a significant expense.
And there’s more, of course. The Senate has been slow-walking confirmation of all his nominees, not just the important ones. How can he govern without his people in place? He can’t—and that’s just what the Democrats want.
And in addition to trying to cripple his administration through lawfare, Democrats are cranking up their extremist rhetoric. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gave a speech titled “Trump’s Threat to Our Democracy.” Kamala Harris has also publicly said, “It’s simple: Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms.” Harris also explicitly called Donald Trump a “fascist” during an interview. She justified using the term in reference to what she views as his authoritarian rhetoric and threats to democratic norms. Other Democratic leaders, e.g., Representative Jason Crow (D-CO), have called Trump an “extreme danger” to the constitutional order.
After a Supreme Court ruling allowed expanded ICE raids in Los Angeles (under Trump administration policies), California Governor Gavin Newsom called the Court’s decision “the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror,” alleging that the Trump administration was targeting Latinos. Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) also decried the decision as an attack on personal freedom.
Against all those personal and scurrilous attacks on him and his administration, why shouldn’t Trump engage in a lawfare campaign of his own? The fact is, even after the murder of Charlie Kirk, the Democrats are never, never going to let up on Donald Trump. The only way for him to be free of the Democrats is to find ways to make lawfare too expensive for them.
Daniel Oliver is Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the Education and Research Institute and a Director of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in Pasadena, CA. In addition to serving as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan, he was Executive Editor and subsequently Chairman of the Board of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review.
Email Daniel Oliver at Daniel.Oliver@TheCandidAmerican.com.