Corruption on a Larger Scale Than Watergate Just Happened Right Under Our Noses
President Trump’s DOJ subpoenaed phone and other electronic communication records of Vice President Harris, prominent Democrat senators, the ACLU, and dozens of other progressives and progressive organizations. He plans to use this information to press charges against Harris to exclude her from running for President again. He even met with Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas to strategize about what legal strategy the Supreme Court might accept to make it happen. Why hasn’t the media picked this up?
Well, that’s because it never happened. The roles were actually reversed. It was President Biden’s DOJ that did this. It was done to President Trump, his close associates, Republican senators, conservative non-profits, and political thought leaders. It was Judge James Boasberg and Judge Beryl Howell of the District Court for the District of Columbia who met with the DOJ to lend advice on how to make this all happen. And that’s why the media hasn’t paid much attention. It involved incredible corruption. And because it was levied against President Trump, it was given almost no notice, despite the scheme being significantly more corrupt than Watergate. (RELATED: Arctic Frost and the Constitutional Risks of Secret Subpoenas Against Lawmakers)
It all started with Merrick Garland. He drafted a memo to Christopher Wray, the FBI Director, detailing a plan to investigate and charge President Trump and his electoral team — and other close associates — for the “alternate electors” strategy during the 2020 election aftermath. It also involved a presidential records investigation. The memo was then signed off on by Wray and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It was later run by Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team.
There are no “crimes” here. The alternate electors theory was simple: because there were questions about the reliability or legitimacy of the vote tabulations, the Trump election team needed to buy time because election results must be certified by a certain date. The idea was to nominate an “alternate” set of electors to send to Washington in the event that lawsuits prevailed and the electors should belong to President Trump instead of Joe Biden. It was not done in secret. The theory and plan were clear to everyone.
The prosecution, at best, was selective. At worst, it was frivolous.
The presidential records case involved President Trump having left the White House with records that ended up being classified. This is something that is not uncommon, with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden also having been found to have classified documents after leaving their posts. Additionally, the Presidential Records Act gives presidents the latitude to determine records to be “personal” and keep them. The prosecution, at best, was selective. At worst, it was frivolous.
Despite the trivial nature of the aims of the investigation, the DOJ and FBI overturned nearly two hundred people’s lives. All subjects of the investigation were individuals who were either tied to President Trump, were elected Republicans, or who publicly questioned the election results. In many cases, privacy was violated in secret, as personal records were subpoenaed. By Judge Howell’s and Boasberg’s strokes of a pen, the subpoenas were made secret, meaning the subjects of the subpoenas were never informed. This even included toll records from members of Congress’ official phones, which likely violates the Speech and Debate Clause. (RELATED: Peter Navarro, Lawfare, and the Death of Executive Privilege)
In court, the DOJ took every step to violate the rights of Trump and his associates, who had now become “criminal” defendants. They demanded the trial start at an expedited pace, giving very little time for the defense teams to prepare. They then pushed for a trial during the campaign, making it difficult for President Trump to both defend himself and run for president. During the trial, they withheld critical information during discovery. They then filed unnecessary motions roughly two months before election day (when early voting would soon begin, conveniently), noting information that was unsubstantiated. This motion likely violated the DOJ’s own rules on filing motions within 60 days of an election in matters that could impact an election.
It was clear that Arctic Frost’s purpose was threefold. First, it was to prevent President Trump from winning the 2024 election. Second, it was designed to make anyone who speaks up to question the narrative surrounding the election live to regret it. Third, it likely serves to deter future dissenters from speaking up. This fear still lingers today.
Ironically, the only crimes committed were performed by the DOJ and FBI officials involved. It is a federal crime to “under color of law” deprive subjects of their rights under the Constitution. And actively punishing people for speaking out about and questioning an election implicates core First Amendment rights, as does associating with President Trump. Therefore, by seeking to punish speech and to attempt to deter association with President Trump — the likely aim of Arctic Frost — the DOJ and FBI violated federal criminal law.
Additionally, the Hatch Act prohibits using government power to conduct and engage in partisan political activities. Here, each of these individuals was acting under authority within the DOJ and the FBI and performed functions designed to prevent President Trump from winning an election. Even if not criminal, federal law was broken.
Federal law enforcement should not be political. It should not be a tool to help the current administration win an election or punish those who question the administration. This cannot stand, and the whole endeavor should be amplified and, where substantiated, punished. It can never happen again.
Curtis Schube is the Director of Research and Policy at the Center to Advance Security in America and a former constitutional and administrative law attorney.
READ MORE from Curtis Schube:
Thanks to the Supreme Court, Government Should Finally ‘Get Things Done’