{"id":2803,"date":"2025-01-09T12:18:38","date_gmt":"2025-01-09T19:18:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=2803"},"modified":"2025-01-09T12:30:24","modified_gmt":"2025-01-09T19:30:24","slug":"from-snail-darter-to-felony-fiasco-how-lawfare-caught-trump-in-its-net","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2025\/01\/09\/from-snail-darter-to-felony-fiasco-how-lawfare-caught-trump-in-its-net\/","title":{"rendered":"From Snail Darter to Felony Fiasco: How Lawfare Caught Trump in Its Net"},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\r\n <\/p>\n

\"\"
New York Times<\/strong><\/a>, 1\/3\/25: This Tiny Fish\u2019s Mistaken Identity Halted a Dam\u2019s Construction. For such a tiny fish, the snail darter has haunted Tennessee. It was the endangered species that swam its way to the Supreme Court in a vitriolic battle during the 1970s that temporarily blocked the construction of a dam.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/p>\n

\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n

\"\"
New York Times<\/strong><\/a>, 1\/4\/25: \u201cOn Friday, a team of researchers argued that the fish was a phantom all along.\u201d \u201cThere is, technically, no snail darter,\u201d said Thomas Near, curator of ichthyology at the Yale Peabody Museum.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the realm of politics and environmental activism, the “use of magic words”<\/strong><\/em><\/span> has emerged as a potent tool for influencing legislation, often through methods that skirt the edge of legality. The case of the Snail Darter, as detailed by David Strom on HotAir, serves as a stark illustration of this phenomenon.<\/p>\n

The Snail Darter became a symbol in environmental law when its alleged endangerment halted the construction of the Tellico Dam in the 1970s. However, recent revelations, as discussed by Strom in the article below, suggest that the species might not have existed in the way it was presented. This revelation points to an instance of “lawfare” \u2014 the use of legal systems to achieve political or strategic goals, often in ways that can be seen as manipulative or even deceitful.<\/p>\n

The “magic words”<\/strong><\/em><\/span> in this context refer to the terminology and narrative crafted to invoke specific legal protections or public sympathies. By labeling the Snail Darter as an endangered species, activists and legal advocates were able to leverage the Endangered Species Act to block the dam’s construction. This tactic demonstrates how language can be weaponized to control policy outcomes, even when the underlying facts are misrepresented or exaggerated.<\/p>\n

David Strom, Hot Air: Remember The Snail Darter? It Was Never Real<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

As with all such construction projects, the Tellico Dam was controversial. A lot of people didn’t want it built, but they had few tools to stop it. Political support for its construction was substantial–Congress eventually passed a law specifically to enable its construction. However, the opposition found a new tool in their toolbox with the passage of the Environmental Protection Act.<\/p>\n

Conveniently, during its construction, a local zoologist “discovered” a new species of darter fish, which he dubbed the “Snail Darter,” which the EPA rapidly declared a protected species.<\/p>\n

And voila!, the lawsuits began, and construction of the dam was stalled. The lawsuits went all the way to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Congress did eventually pass legislation that allowed the construction to move forward, but the whole fiasco meant increased costs, massive delays, and the ignition of a political firestorm over the Environmental Protection Act. Did it go too far?<\/p>\n

Well, certainly, in this case, it did. There is no such thing as a snail darter. It was a convenient fiction.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The implications of such strategies are profound. When used in this manner, lawfare can harass and sway legislation by creating legal obstacles based on manufactured crises or exaggerated claims. This not only delays projects and increases costs but can also lead to public disillusionment with the legal process when the truth comes to light. It raises ethical questions about the use of the judicial system as a battleground for ideological battles, where the truth becomes secondary to the desired outcome.<\/p>\n

In essence, the Snail Darter case is a cautionary tale about the power of words in law and policy. It underscores the need for vigilance and integrity in how laws are applied and how environmental concerns are addressed, ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not become mired in political or strategic maneuvering.<\/p>\n

The case of Donald Trump’s “Hush Money.”<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

To argue that the principle of lawfare, as seen in the Snail Darter case, is at play in the New York case against Donald Trump, we need to dissect the legal maneuvers and the nature of the charges brought against him. Here’s a logical case for such a conclusion:<\/p>\n

1. Elevation of Charges:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Vox<\/strong><\/a>, Andrew Prokop, 4\/5\/23: “Bragg has charged these business records offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanors. His legal basis for doing this currently resembles a ramshackle contraption held together with spit and bailing wire.”<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The original act in question, the payment to Stormy Daniels to secure her silence, could arguably be categorized as a misdemeanor for falsifying business records if one stretches the legal interpretation. However, in New York, falsifying business records is only a misdemeanor unless there’s an intent to commit or conceal another crime. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office elevated these charges to 34 counts of felony by alleging that the intent was to commit or conceal another crime, specifically violations of campaign finance laws or election laws.<\/p>\n

Argument:<\/strong> <\/span>This elevation from misdemeanor to felony represents a significant legal stretch, akin to the “magic words” used in the Snail Darter case. The DA used the narrative of election interference to justify the felony charges, much like environmental advocates used the term “endangered” to block the Tellico Dam. Here, the “magic words” are “election law violations,” which aren’t directly charged but invoked to amplify the severity of the charges.<\/p>\n

2. Novel Legal Theory:<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe legal theory that the DA’s office employed to charge Trump is novel and untested in this context. It involves a complex interplay of state and federal laws where the state law is used to prosecute what could be perceived as a federal issue (campaign finance).
\nArgument:<\/strong><\/span> Just as the Snail Darter was leveraged through an arguably exaggerated application of the Endangered Species Act, here, the law is being manipulated to fit a political narrative. The legal theory seems designed to target Trump specifically, much like how environmental laws were manipulated to target the dam project.<\/p>\n

Stanford University Blog, 5\/31\/24: Robert Weisberg on the Trump Conviction in Hush-Money Case<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Are you surprised by the verdict? And that Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Maybe I\u2019m a little surprised that in effect the jury was so utterly unconvinced by the arguments that the very experienced Todd Blanche was making. But to express surprise is to suggest that I made a somewhat confident prediction of a different outcome. I\u2019m not sure anyone could\u2019ve made a confident prediction of any outcome in this case because of its unique context. So, I guess no outcome should surprise anyone. Maybe a sound prediction would have been something like a hung jury, but only because that would average out a wide range of possible outcomes.<\/p>\n

As for it being all 34 counts, they were just 34 acts of doing pretty much the same thing in 34 different financial entries, so maybe \u201call or none\u201d is not a surprise.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

3. Statute of Limitations and Timing:<\/strong><\/span>
\nMany of the actions related to the charges occurred years ago, past the typical statute of limitations for such offenses. However, through legal maneuvering, including extending the statute by linking the crimes to a continuous fraudulent scheme, the case was brought forward.
\nArgument:<\/strong> <\/span>Similar to how the Snail Darter case delayed a project for political ends, this case uses legal time extensions to keep Trump in the legal spotlight, potentially influencing his political activities or public perception, which mirrors the strategic use of law to achieve non-legal outcomes.<\/p>\n

4. Creation of Facts:<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe case against Trump relies heavily on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who has admitted to lying in the past and has motives to skew facts against Trump. The narrative that these payments were for campaign purposes rather than personal protection (which wouldn’t break campaign finance laws) is largely based on interpretations rather than clear, undeniable evidence.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Newsmax<\/strong><\/a>, 12\/31\/24, Alan Dershowitz: “This case will go down in history as the greatest abuses of prosecutorial discretion, the worst misuse of the criminal justice system, the worst creation of lawfare in the history of this country.”<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Argument:<\/strong><\/span> This mirrors the creation of a narrative around the Snail Darter’s existence and impact, where scientific or factual bases were questionable at best. Here, the facts are presented in a way that serves the legal strategy, not necessarily the truth of the situation.<\/p>\n

5. Political Motivation:<\/span><\/strong>
\nThe timing of the indictment, the profile of the DA who campaigned on prosecuting Trump, and the broader political context (Trump running for office again) suggest that these charges might serve political ends rather than purely legal ones.
\nArgument:<\/strong><\/span> Just as the Snail Darter was used to further environmental activism, this case could be seen as lawfare to politically weaken or distract Trump, using the legal system in ways that might not have been pursued if the subject were not a high-profile political figure.<\/p>\n

This “Oopsie” didn’t get the attention it deserves…<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

CNN, 9\/6\/24: Spokesman for Manhattan US Attorney\u2019s office says he regrets comments criticizing Trump hush money case<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

A spokesman for the Manhattan US Attorney\u2019s office apologized following the release of a secretly recorded video that captured him slamming Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg\u2019s hush money case against Donald Trump as \u201cnonsense\u201d and a \u201cperversion of justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nicholas Biase, chief public information officer for the US Attorney\u2019s Office for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement, \u201cI was recently made aware of a video where I regretfully made some statements in a private and social setting that don\u2019t reflect my views about two local and state prosecutions.\u201d The statement was previously reported by the New York Post.<\/p>\n

Biase\u2019s statement about the case, which is outside of his office\u2019s jurisdiction, came hours after conservative podcaster Steven Crowder released a secretly recorded, edited video of conversations between Biase and an unidentified woman that Crowder said occurred in July and August.<\/p>\n

In the recording, which has been edited into short soundbites, Biase can be heard saying, \u201cThe whole thing is disgusting. They\u2019re just out to get him,\u201d<\/strong><\/span> referring to Trump.<\/p>\n

Biase claimed in the video that Bragg \u201cwas stacking charges and rearranging things just to make it fit a case.\u201d<\/strong> <\/span>He continued: \u201cTo be honest with you, I think the case is nonsense.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

CNN has not independently obtained or verified the video.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And, of course, there was ZERO media attention given to this report…<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

House Judiciary Committee, 7\/9\/24: How Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

President Trump never had a real shot at a fair trial in Manhattan. In a more neutral jurisdiction, where a politically ambitious prosecutor was not motivated by partisanship and a trial judge with perceived biases did not refuse to enforce a fair proceeding, President Trump would have never been found guilty. But Manhattan is anything but a neutral jurisdiction. President Trump promised to appeal, stating, \u201cWe will fight for our constitution. This is far from over.\u201d But the Democrats\u2019 use of lawfare accomplished its short-term goal\u2014it removed President Trump from the campaign trail and diverted attention away from President Biden\u2019s missteps and failing policies.<\/p>\n

[On Michael Cohen]<\/strong><\/span>: Despite Cohen\u2019s lack of credibility, during President Trump\u2019s trial, Bragg heavily relied on Cohen\u2019s testimony and credibility.103 Cohen was the prosecution\u2019s last witness and he spent four days testifying with the purpose of shedding light on President Trump\u2019s alleged crime. Yet, the only discernible crime that Cohen shed light on was his own. In particular, Cohen admitted on the stand that he stole from the Trump Organization. Cohen testified that he sought reimbursement from the Trump Organization for $50,000 to pay a vendor but only gave the firm about $20,000\u2014pocketing about $30,000 for himself.106 When asked on cross\u0002examination if he \u201cstole [the money] from the Trump Organization,\u201d Cohen responded, \u201cYes, sir.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> When asked why he stole $30,000, Cohen testified that he was \u201cangry\u201d because his annual bonus had been reduced. Politico reported that \u201c[t]he total theft actually amounted to $60,000, because all sums were doubled to cover taxes Cohen might owe.\u201d109 One legal analyst explained, \u201cThe fact that [Cohen] was never charged with larceny is important because . . . larceny in New York State is more serious of a crime than falsifying business records.\u201d In other words, Bragg\u2019s star witness committed a more serious offense than President Trump, yet Bragg not only let him off the hook but also relied on him to go after President Trump.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The latest perspective on Alvin Bragg’s Wild West Prosecution Show … Daniel Penny<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

New York Law Journal, 12\/9\/24: The Daniel Penny Verdict and Alvin Bragg\u2019s Legal Derailment<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Prosecutors must pursue justice impartially, resisting pressures from public outcry or political agendas. This principle is foundational to the rule of law and safeguards against unjust outcomes. The jury spent five days deliberating, because they thought, \u201cIf DA Bragg brought these charges\u2014there must be some meat.\u201d But there wasn\u2019t, it was just an empty bun, and this political prosecution was just another swing and a miss by Bragg.<\/strong><\/span> The only losers were the law-abiding citizens of New York City.<\/p>\n

Bragg is not a rookie when it comes to overcharging people who are only trying to protect the citizens of this city. He improperly charged New York City Police Department officer Salvatore Provenzano, who was found not guilty of assault on April 25. He improperly charged Adam Foss, a social justice advocate and former Boston Prosecutor, who was found not guilty of all charges in November of 2023. And he created a circus with the political prosecution of President-Elect Donald Trump, whose case remains in limbo but will eventually be dismissed. New York City needs a DA who will reinforce public safety, commit to mental health reform, and uphold justice for everyday New Yorkers. They do not need a political spectacle \u2013 wasting taxpayer money, time, and energy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Conclusion:<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe New York case against Trump, when viewed through the lens of the lawfare tactics employed in the Snail Darter incident, demonstrates a similar strategy. By stretching legal interpretations, employing novel legal theories, extending statutes, and creating or emphasizing certain facts over others, the case seems designed to achieve political outcomes under the guise of legal accountability. This not only questions the integrity of the legal process but also highlights how law can be weaponized in political warfare.<\/p>\n

Reuters: Trump’s bid to halt hush money sentencing in US Supreme Court’s hands<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

NEW YORK, Jan 9 (Reuters) – New York’s top court rejected on Thursday Donald Trump’s request to halt the president-elect’s sentencing for his conviction on criminal charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star, with a decision on a possible delay now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
\nThe state court’s decision was a setback for Trump, who now must pin his hopes of freezing the case on the nation’s top judicial body, where his lawyers have made a similar emergency bid to avoid the sentencing, set for Friday at 9:30 a.m. (1430 GMT) in a Manhattan court.<\/p>\n

The trial judge in Trump’s case, Justice Juan Merchan, said last week he was not inclined to sentence the Republican president-elect to prison and would likely grant him unconditional discharge. This would place a guilty judgment on Trump’s record, but would not impose custody, a fine or probation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Forbes: What To Expect From Trump\u2019s Hush Money Sentencing<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

While Merchan has suggested he\u2019s likely to grant an unconditional discharge, his final ruling on Trump\u2019s sentence could be different. If the judge does not grant an unconditional discharge, Trump could still be fined up to $170,000 even if he\u2019s not given prison time, based on a $5,000 fine per charge. The judge could also impose other penalties like probation, though that\u2019s unlikely, given the logistical issues that could present given Trump\u2019s presidency.<\/p>\n

An unconditional discharge, as Trump is likely to get, can be imposed under New York state law when the \u201ccourt is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.\u201d When a defendant is given an unconditional discharge, the court will have to give its reason for doing so, and the defendant is released \u201cwithout imprisonment, fine or probation supervision,\u201d according to New York law.<\/p>\n

Will Trump Still Be A Convicted Felon?<\/strong><\/span>
\nYes. By being sentenced, even if he\u2019s given an unconditional discharge, Trump will formally be convicted of his 34 crimes, as the Justice Department notes being sentenced is necessary for a conviction. The sentencing also means Trump will then be allowed to formally appeal the jury\u2019s verdict against him, which he can\u2019t do before his sentencing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"
Daily Caller,<\/strong><\/a> 5\/31\/24: Elie Honig, once a colleague of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, called Bragg\u2019s \u201ccontorted\u201d case against former President Donald Trump an \u201cill-conceived, unjustified mess\u201d in a Friday op-ed for New York Magazine. The DA\u2019s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. He called the case a \u201cFrankenstein\u201d because the prosecution cobbled together the charges to build a monstrosity that \u201cmight ultimately turn on its creator.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the end, the saga of the Snail Darter and the legal labyrinth confronting Donald Trump reveal a disturbing trend in our justice system: “The Process is the Punishment.” This isn’t about justice being blind but rather about using the law as a bludgeon to wear down opponents, where the real crime is the ordeal of the legal battle itself. In the case of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, this tactic has been pushed to egregious new lows. Bragg’s approach isn’t about pursuing justice but about weaponizing the legal system for political vendettas. Whether it’s delaying a dam project for years or turning a single alleged misdemeanor into a mountain of felonies, the strategy remains the same\u2014exhaust, discredit, and distract through endless legal warfare. Bragg’s crusade against Trump is less about legal accountability and more about political retribution, exploiting legal loopholes and stretching the law to fit his narrative. This isn’t justice; it’s a game where the process itself becomes the punishment, leaving truth and fairness mired in the quagmire of legal maneuvering. Bragg’s legacy might not be one of upholding the law but rather one of abusing it, demonstrating that in his hands, the justice system has become a tool for political persecution rather than protection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the realm of politics and environmental activism, the “use of magic words” has emerged as a potent tool for influencing legislation, often through methods that skirt the edge of legality. The case of the Snail Darter, as detailed by David Strom on HotAir, serves as a stark illustration of this phenomenon. The Snail Darter…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[41,164,81],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-donald-trump","category-environmentalism","category-government-overreach"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2803","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}