Trump II: Justice or Retribution? Retribution or Justice?

Pardon Me (pun intended) – It’s About DETERRENCE

In this piece we will discuss (in order) the current debate concerning how the second Trump administration should deal with the lawfare of recent years — justice vs. retribution vs. deterrence; ways that justice can be served in spite of expected mass pardons by Joe Biden; and harnessing AI to both serve justice and enable a (proverbial) “kill shot” against the Deep State.

DETERRENCE

Recently, much ink – physical and digital – has been devoted to what, if any, response(s) should be taken by a second Trump administration to the lawfare and similar activities that have been deployed against President Trump and others since, well, at least 2016.

The list of impacted individuals is long, including: President Trump himself; staff and supporters (such as General Flynn and Rudy Giuliani); the J6 political prisoners. All the way to, arguably, every citizen in states and localities in which election fraud was executed and protected. The impacted individuals are potential plaintiffs in future litigation.

Many from the left-side of the aisle are opining that we should “move on,” and that any actions against (what we’ll refer to as) “Team Lawfare” would be nothing but illegitimate “retribution.” But then, they would take this position, wouldn’t they? Insulating Team Lawfare from liability keeps its powder dry, enabling it to be deployed on another day.

Conversely, many on the right insist that Team Lawfare must be held “accountable,” that such would serve justice.

This is closer to the mark, but not complete. For you see, in law, it is long recognized that dispensing justice – holding people accountable – also serves the legitimate purpose of DETERRENCE. That in the future others, seeing that consequences can and will follow, will be more inclined to refrain from such activities.

Criminal law theorists believe that sentences serve two purposes. First, they serve the goal of deterring future crime by both the convict and by other individuals contemplating a committal of the same crime. Second, a sentence serves the goal of retribution, which posits that the criminal deserves punishment for having acted criminally. When sentencing, a judge must impose the least severe sentence that still achieves both goals, while also considering the need for societal protection. — Legal Information Institute, Sentencing

It is submitted for your consideration that the activities of Team Lawfare in recent years have struck at the very fiber of our Constitutional Republic – much of those activities coming from within the very institutions which are charged (and trusted) with maintaining our Constitutional order, and its indispensable system of justice: the U.S. Department of Justice; the FBI; the federal judiciary.

For what we’ll call “Team Trump,” pursuing an “eye for an eye” type of response would merely send us spiraling into an ever-escalating war of contra-Constitutional acts intended to extinguish the other side as a viable political force, or means for exercising legitimate First Amendment rights.

MSNBC aside, few actually believe that is what President Trump or his supporters intend. MAGA is composed of the people who revere our Constitution, and our nation, and want them restored.

BUT, to stand-down, to “move on,” would be a dereliction of duty. A violation of the oath of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Here, pursuing DETERRENCE is such a defense of our Constitution – for no side of the political aisle should ever again be tempted to undertake the type of politicized lawfare our nation has been subjected to in recent years.

Particularly since we’re talking about lawfare committed by amoral, unethical people whose mission has been to “fundamentally transform” our Constitutional Republic with some vassal entity subordinate to “global governance.” In other words, people who hold no regard for our system of justice, or Constitutional Republic. Such people will not understand anything but punitive measures; they will only bow to and abide by force, not voluntarily align to “what’s right.”

We must not sink to their level. But still, justice can and must be pursued – but only in accord with how our system is supposed to operate – with a presumption of innocence, adherence to the rules of evidence and prosecutorial ethics – and punishment only when warranted, and its degree commensurate with the infraction(s) committed.

ACCOUNTABILITY NOTWITHSTANDING MASS PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS

It will surprise no one if, on his way out the door, Joe Biden issues Presidential pardons on an unprecedented scale. (You really don’t believe that he’ll stop at Hunter Biden, do you?)

Heck, it would not surprise if, e.g., he issues hundreds, if not thousands of pardons mere days before the inauguration, steps down in favor of Kamala Harris, and she in turn pardons him (perhaps the reciprocal of one he had just granted her)?

“On paper” this would insulate the beneficiaries from federal prosecutions for federal crimes.

But that does not mean that justice cannot be served.

There is a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act which provides for tort lawsuits against the federal government (in qualifying circumstances); essentially a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. This could provide a mechanism for individuals such as the J6 political prisoners to get monetary recompense for their damages.

BUT, even if successful, judgments will be paid with taxpayer dollars. Therefore, such suits, even if successful, hardly provide a deterrence to those federal officials who were responsible.

So, how might that be accomplished?

Well, the Presidential pardons do not bar civil actions by individuals or groups.

There is a concept in law called respondeat superior by which the employer (here, the federal government) is held liable for the torts committed by its employees acting within the scope of their employment. But, when we’re talking federal employees, that sovereign immunity bar can raise its ugly head.

All is not lost. Along those lines, with the kind of nefarious acts we’re talking about, there should be a viable workaround insofar as that those officials were not acting within the “scope of their employment.” In other words, the actions they took were per se in violation of law or relevant federal requirements (e.g., DOJ prosecutors violating the DOJ’s own code of conduct), and so, by definition, not within the “scope of their employment.”

Counts might (legitimately) cite any or all of: spoliation of evidence; conspiracy against rights; fraud / candor toward the tribunal / fraud on the court; conspiracy (civil RICO); defamation; witness tampering; abuse of process; obstruction of justice. Without a doubt, in particular cases there are many other potential causes of action.

Some or all of the true evildoers will experience financial ruin, public shame (and, in the case of attorneys and judges, possible disbarment). Such results will carry a salutary lesson for federal employees (and non-federal actors) far into the future.

But, before such lawsuits are brought, care must be taken to gather evidence, and then only file lawsuits when the evidence is clear that there is a meritorious, good-faith complaint to be filed.

Our side has experienced abusive lawfare and the bankrupting innocent people – theirs is not the level we should sink to. We want to deter such in the future, not normalize it.

So how might we conduct “due diligence” in order to advance only meritorious lawsuits? How might we advance deterrence while abiding by (what should be universally applied) Constitutional norms?

AI AND EVIDENCE GATHERING

Let us here propose that we use a sort of “all of government” approach to gather information – potential evidence – on and against Team Lawfare and the Deep State (among others).

We can anticipate that already across the federal government records and text messages and emails are getting, well, the “Hillary Bleach Bit” treatment – notwithstanding that destroying government records can itself be a crime.

On the other hand, not everything can be deleted, and digital remnants remain.

At the same time, it’s likely that within the “intelligence community” there already exists one or more AI programs that can sort through myriad forms of data – email; phone contacts; documents; text and voice – and discern evidence of wrongdoing (and the planning and coordination therefore); identify the involved parties and who all they’re connected to; deciphering code words and phrases to assess what’s actually being communicated and so on. Such AI programs were probably developed a while back to discover, e.g., emerging terrorist plots, and so are now available “off the shelf.”

What if a Trump administration harnessed one or more of those programs (tweaking them if necessary) to comprehensively and as a single analysis examine (ALL OF): Covid (origin, responses and the “vaccines”); the cartels and drug and human trafficking; foreign government and NGO compromise of American citizens (especially federal employees and elected officials); Russia Gate; the elections of 2016, 2020, 2022 and 2024; the impeachments; J6 and the J6 Committee?

Using the supercomputing power from one of our weapons labs to run the AI analysis would enable it to be completed with great speed.

That examination (with FISA and or court warrants, when necessary) should scan all of the DOJ / FBI and DHS and NSA databases (ideally, the entirety of databases within the federal government). Also, on a national security basis, NGO’s, foundations, non-profits and foreign entities like the U.N. and WHO and WEF.

I would also propose also examining the Treasury and banking records, the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks.

A robust AI program run on robust supercomputing power could take in all that information, and then synthesize and prioritize into actionable information and evidence, to an extent, and with a speed, that no human or team of humans could come close to duplicating.

To the extent that there is a spider-web-of-evil – vaccines, cartels, human trafficking, CCP and other “elite capture,” Globalist ambitions to control the world, treason – such an AI-led search could expose it all, and how and where elements of it are connected to each other. And the elected officials and other individuals within our government, academia and media who are its collaborators and perpetrators.

WHAT TO DO WITH THE INFORMATION ONCE WE HAVE IT

The “intelligence community” likes to hide behind “sources and methods” and “ongoing investigations.”

What if turn the tables on that and we turn the mass-pardons on their head, eh?

If people are “pardoned,” then there’s no ongoing federal investigation or pending prosecution to “protect.”

So, what if the most pertinent results of the AI analysis are declassified and released to the public? (Talk about the ultimate “red pill!”)

For one thing, those that were pardoned could still have their “dirty laundry” – I believe in some cases, out-and-out treason – out in the public domain. That alone advances the cause of deterrence.

Also, many in the federal government – judges, elected officials, bureaucrats – might “self deport” (resign) once their imbroglios-in-office are thrust into the disinfectant sunshine of public exposure.

Better yet, what if the initiation of the AI analysis was announced to the public as it was being commenced, or shortly after it is started (perhaps omitting the specific identities of some of the more sensitive sources, such as foreign central banks)? That would be general enough to not violate “sources and methods.”

I mention this concurrent announcement because, in a prior Substack (here), I mentioned an idea of Trevor Loudon’s to create a sort-of “Untouchables” team, a vetted group of unquestioned integrity and patriotism that would work to counter foreign espionage / elite capture. He also proposed offering individuals an amnesty period within which they could come forward and confess, and by so doing receive immunity from prosecution (presumably also premised on a commitment to testify against others, if needed).

Well, suppose at the time the commencement of the AI analysis its existence is shared with the public and it is also announced that there would be an amnesty period for people to come forward and confess to our new “Untouchables” team in order to receive immunity from prosecution?

For those not-pardoned – and perhaps even some that were* – such an offer might prove too compelling to resist. After all, for such people, it would be rational to fear just what all such an AI analysis might dig-up about them – they could no longer feel as “safe” or “protected” as before. Nor could they confidently assume that others with whom they conspired were not setting up to confess, and later testify against them.

A side benefit of such a scenario is that efforts to thwart DOGE and other efforts to derail the second Trump term could well screech to a halt, as the folks who would be poised execute such could wind up involuntarily and exclusively concentrating on keeping their butts out of court … and, likely, prison.

That publicly released information – the AI results, which would constitute EVIDENCE – would then also be available to private attorneys pursuing civil lawsuits against federal employee tortfeasors. The fruits of that AI analysis would, in turn, provide sufficient evidence to conduct due diligence before filing suit, and so limit the filings to meritorious cases, not vexatious or unsubstantiated ones — and help ensure the success of those suits that are filed.

Thus, the AI analysis could be the proverbial “kill shot” for the spider-web-of-evil, dismembering of the Deep State and Globalist-CCP Axis; effectively deterring those and similar efforts from ever darkening our country again.

*What if the AI analysis confirmed that the 2020 election was stolen, and Biden illegitimately installed in office? In a February, 2021 post (here) I advocated applying the legal doctrine of void ab initio to all actions of the Biden “administration.” This premised on the idea that if the Biden administration was illegitimately installed (via stolen election / coup d’etat) then it would follow that all of its actions could be declared legally void. Including all President pardons issued? That is an intriguing thought, is it not?