The Left's Legacy of Lawfare

Abuses of constitutionally protected due process

The lawfare aimed at Donald Trump over the past four years was so blatant that a large majority of Americans could see through it. The indignation of these Americans swept Trump to victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Other Americans who have felt the left’s heat include many of the January 6 defendants as well as dissidents who have questioned left-wing policies or dared to criticize them.

Why does this lawfare feel so wrong to many Americans? Geoff Shepard, a lawyer and author of The Real Watergate Scandal, describes it this way:

“The right to a full and fair trial—derived from English common law and the product of countless procedural refinements—is at the very center of our judicial system. Indeed, the Supreme Court has described the right to a fair trial as “the most fundamental of all freedoms,” which “must be maintained at all costs.”¹

A fair trial

The right to due process is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment says that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.”²

The five requirements of due process outlined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as succinctly summarized by Shepard, are as follows:

A public trial

“A public trial with the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers.”³

An impartial judge

“Presided over by a fair and impartial trial judge. A judge should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.”⁴

Nonpartisan prosecutors

“With the government’s case presented by nonpartisan prosecutors, subject to uniformly applied rules of conduct. At stake here is the even-handed enforcement of the laws and the avoidance of selective prosecution—in other words, ‘equal justice under law.’ Prosecutors are not supposed to dust off laws which haven’t been enforced for decades or bring charges under entirely novel interpretations in order to ‘get’ particular parties they don’t like.”⁵

An unbiased jury

“Whose verdict is rendered by an untainted and unbiased jury of one’s peers. They must be free of racial, political and other prejudices against the defendant. Their impartiality must not have been tainted by pretrial publicity. They must learn the facts of the case from evidence presented in court and not from outside sources.”⁶

Right to appeal

“The right to a fair and impartial appellate review. Every defendant convicted of a federal crime has an automatic and guaranteed right to an appeal, to a full and fair review of all aspects of his trial. These appeals are typically heard before a panel of three circuit court judges.”⁷

Lawfare = Abuses of due process

If any of these due process requirements are not met during a trial, the verdict of the trial is completely invalid. As Shepard reiterates:

“Without a fair trial, a jury could not have rendered a valid verdict. Guilt can be found only by a court after a constitutionally sound trial.”⁸

Shepard makes the case that Richard Nixon and his aids did not receive due process in the Watergate trials. Declassified evidence clearly shows that all five requirements of due process were violated. Today, the Left continues to use similar lawfare tactics against its political opponents, or anyone who does not sycophantically agree with them. The Left’s abuses of due process are numerous and severe.

That begs the question: If verdicts resulting from judicial misconduct are invalid, why are these verdicts and the people responsible for them not being thrown out of court? Shepard reviews several cases involving due process abuse that, when investigated, resulted in the convictions being officially withdrawn.⁹ Similarly, last year the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Justice Department had acted unconstitutionally when it inappropriately used an Enron-era obstruction law to convict Jan. 6 defendants with up to 20 years in prison on charges of “obstructing an official proceeding.”¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹²

Reviews of our court system need to start happening regularly to ensure accountability. If the judicial system cannot police itself, congressional committees have the authority to investigate those who are subverting our judicial system. The offending prosecutors and judges need to lose their licenses and be held accountable for violating the law.

Lady Justice is said to be blind. When members of the judicial system are not disqualified for exhibiting political bias or unconstitutional behavior, subversion of our judicial system becomes blatant and pervasive.

1. Geoff Shepard. “The Real Watergate Scandal: Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down.” Salem Communications Holding Corporation, 2015.

2. The Constitution of the United States of America, 1787.

3. See Footnote 1.

4. See Footnote 1.

5. See Footnote 1.

6. See Footnote 1.

7. See Footnote 1.

8. See Footnote 1.

9. See Footnote 1.

10. Trump Officials Target Agents, Prosecutors Who Worked on Jan. 6 Investigations. Wall Street Journal, 1-31-25. www.wsj.com/politics/trump-officials-target-agents-prosecutors-who-worked-on-trump-investigations-3a80b280?mod

11. Jan. 6 US Capitol attack: What the Supreme Court’s ruling means for riot cases. Reuters, 6-28-24. www.reuters.com/legal/what-us-supreme-courts-obstruction-ruling-means-jan-6-riot-cases-2024-06-28/

12. Obstructing an official proceeding. Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructing_an_official_proceeding