Donald Trump is expected to overcome the Georgia indictment, as well as several others, though an unusual caveat has emerged: humorously, there’s talk of a potential new indictment related to removing mattress tags. Trump’s ability to withstand the legal challenges from the left, often dubbed “lawfare,” regardless of how ludicrous the allegations may seem, largely hinges on the preservation of the rule of law at the federal level.
Before dismissing this narrative in frustration, it’s worth considering the strategy presented by Mike Davis from the Article III Project, who shared his insights on the “Adult in the Room” podcast. Davis not only contends that Trump can effectively combat Fani Willis’s “absurd” legal case but also emerge victorious. A key element in Trump’s path to victory involves ethical judges, as well as public skepticism and wry amusement in response to the mattress tag joke.
Davis remarked on the program, “This is clear lawfare by the Democrats on five different fronts.” He highlighted various legal actions taken against Trump, including the New York attorney general’s civil fraud lawsuit over a non-fraudulent business transaction, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s indictment, backed by Soros funding, for settling a nuisance claim. Additionally, special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for possessing Mar-a-Lago documents, a move perceived as espionage, was noted.
Davis drew comparisons between the Trump case and President Biden’s handling of documents in multiple locations, including one accessible to a Chinese official despite Biden’s restrictions on document retention during his vice presidency.
Furthermore, Davis discussed the indictments of Trump by Jack Smith and Fani Willis for the non-crime of a presidential candidate objecting to a presidential election. He argued that these charges were deliberately timed to disrupt the 2024 presidential race, as they were brought forward after a 30-month delay, creating the impression of lawfare and election interference.
The suggested course of action for Trump, exemplified by former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is to claim immunity under the Supremacy Clause and request the dismissal of all charges or, at the very least, a stay in the state case while pursuing the federal court claim.
The argument asserts that Meadows’ actions, such as arranging Oval Office meetings and contacting state officials on the president’s behalf, were part of his job. Meadows’ expedited hearing is scheduled for August 28, with the contention that a state court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Former Justice Department officials Jeff Clark and Donald Trump are expected to make similar claims.
Davis contended that each lawfare action taken by Democrats, wherein they weaponize the judicial system, appears increasingly far-fetched with each filing. He suggested that these efforts will only serve to bolster Trump’s position.
The success of this strategy, taking legal matters directly to federal court and potentially the Supreme Court, hinges on judges who uphold the rule of law. Davis acknowledges that while some judges and prosecutors have been willing to indulge in left-leaning lawfare, this trend is not sustainable. He believes that each unlawful move strengthens Trump’s standing in the court of public opinion.
Davis also noted that Trump could use these outlandish legal maneuvers to his political advantage, employing a tactic he referred to as the “dead chicken” strategy, derived from a story Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once shared with him. This approach is detailed further in the podcast.
