It is a fair question to ask how we got to a condition in this country where one party is using law enforcement, the courts, and intelligence agencies to attack, and in some cases imprison, its political opponents.

The term now used to describe this  is “lawfare.”  It means the use of law and the court system to both attack and destroy your political opposition. What cannot be realized at the ballot box can now be achieved through the manipulation of the law.

Little thought seems to have gone into the long-term implications for the respect for law as an institution and what damage this does to the democratic process. Or more pessimistically, what they are doing is fully understood and the aim is to create a one-party state.

Is this all part of the Obama plan to “fundamentally transform America?”  Yes, we think it is.

Equally galling, is this is largely being done by those most pious about “protecting democracy.”

This goes beyond the use of lawsuits and prosecutions.  It extends into spying on political opponents, using false dossiers funded by Democrats and written by foreign intelligence officials.  It even involves giving false testimony to FISA Courts. Then, upon the discovery of these nefarious plans and illegalities, the Department of “Justice” decides none of the violations are worthy of prosecution.  The latter upends the rule of law and the American principle that justice should be blind and fairly applied.

Lawfare has been applied beyond politics.  In the great violation of civil liberties under COVID-19, many were silent.  There is nothing inherent in a virus that is substantially political, but it soon became political.  Then again, for Leftists, everything is political. That is one of the key rules of radicals: to make the personal, political.

It has meant wholesale changes in election law, under Covid “emergency” conditions by agencies not authorized to change those laws.  After the “emergency” has passed, the changes conveniently remain in place.

It includes the use of threats and the actual coopting of private media companies to carry false stories ginned up by intelligence agencies working with Democrats.  This cooption of media even extends to hiring into corporate bureaucracy former intelligence officials and party commissars.

Control of information means the control of the political narrative and that in turn means the American people don’t get unbiased information to use in making electoral decisions.  It is election interference at the highest levels of communication.

Of course, we know that the Democrats and radical donors like George Soros are largely responsible for this.  They systematically have radicalized law schools, judges, the FBI, the DOJ, and District Attorneys.  Certainly starting with Obama, the aim was to get as many radicals in key departments as possible both to change the character of these agencies and to prepare to weaponize them against political opponents.  Achieving their goals has taken many years, much planning, and massive funding.  But such planning and funding cannot be called a “conspiracy” although we are hard-pressed to think of another word that accurately describes this process.

But we would also point out that the Courts also bear significant responsibility.  In many cases, they have allowed the system they are in charge of to be perverted.  Their petty political needs seem to have trumped their love of the law, their solemn oath of office, and the need to protect their institution. On other occasions, they won’t take key cases where information about voter fraud or election interference can be properly investigated.  Without the power the courts have to obtain information under oath, faith in the electoral system is damaged.  Without proper vetting, it is difficult to know when claims of election interference are real or simply the imagination of a disappointed office seeker.

Corporations are required to be audited all the time.  The assumption is people are not always honest.  Why should this requirement not be required in elections?  Have politicians demonstrated they are consistently more honest than executives? Elections are arguably a lot more important and profound in their societal impact than some annual reports that will only be read by a handful of stock analysts.

Now, lawfare extends to deliberately kneecapping your political opponents by attacking their attorneys, who Republicans recruit to fight back.  As we have mentioned before in our coverage of John Eastman, this can include indictment, disbarment from legal practice, de-banking, exhaustion, and bankruptcy. Now even Arizona’s own Attorney General is involved.  The aim is to make it clear to Republican attorneys that if you resist, you will be ruined.

As mentioned, the Courts themselves have not awakened to this threat. But Democrats have made this progress largely because many Republicans were largely asleep or were so viscerally opposed to Trump, that they enjoyed his torment and politically profited from it. The lesson here is clear. It is a bad tactic to remain silent and allow your political opposition to attack and destroy your interparty rivals using lawfare.

It is better to debate with Trump and engage his supporters to hash out differences than allow your opposition to destroy them using lawfare.  The obvious reason is that once lawfare is widely accepted as a political practice, it can soon be turned upon Trump-hating Republicans or anyone else who might want to challenge Democrat orthodoxy.

To his credit, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been quite vocal and articulate on the subject of lawfare.

We wonder if party leaders like Mitch McConnell, Doug Ducey, and Steven Richer are listening.  Just because Trump’s style of politics is grating, or that he seems like a presumptuous outsider, he commands the majority of Republicans.  Your fellow Republicans have been under systematic and relentless attack yet many party leaders remain strangely quiet.  What makes you think you will not be next?

If Trump is successful in a second term, there is a valid argument to be made to use the tools developed by Democrats against them.  Our preference though, is to avoid making lawfare an accepted precedent and restore law and order to our electoral system.  On the other hand, we might not reach a point of consensus until Democrats feel the sting of having their candidates subjected to lawfare.

But our main concern is the weak and delayed Republican response.  This is something Republicans can do something about.  For certain, the Democrats don’t seem to see the danger in what they are doing.

Perhaps some Republican leaders believe the party is better off without Trump and his supporters.  Fair enough.  However, that seems to be a dumb political calculation given the evident changes in the party.  Trump has largely been successful precisely because of the weak-kneed opposition presented by the Republican establishment.  The leftward drift in this country is now so obvious, that Republicans want fighters.

But our obvious point is that even if Trump and supporters are purged from our party by Democrats, there will not be much of a party left.  Then, what political force do you see standing in the way of rampaging Democrats?

As for our Libertarian friends, they have also been AWOL on this subject because they don’t like Trump’s trade policies and other things. This is like turning down a date with Briget Bardot in her prime because of a broken nail. Where are your priorities? Besides, Libertarians are so weak politically, that their views don’t matter much beyond the influence they have on Republican thinking.

Moreover, Democrat lawfare will soon be after all of us outside of their party.  To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we either will all hang together or they will hang us separately.

Most Republicans agree on a vast number of issues, even if their rhetoric is stylistically different.  However, the threat of lawfare is an existential threat to American liberty, American justice, and the survival of the Republican Party.  Will all real Republicans now bury their petty political differences and please speak up?