By Douglas V. Gibbs ——Bio and Archives--April 13, 2024
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
When Donald Trump was charged with 91 indictments it never occurred to anybody that none of the accusations were actually directly linked to any actual crimes. Nearly all of the charges are conspiracy charges. He’s charged with a conspiracy to change an election. A conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. A conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. A conspiracy to defraud the United States. None of the charges say he actually committed any of the actions he’s accused of planning to commit. His words, according to his accusers, simply said he wanted to commit those actions, and that he was planning on committing those actions.
The presence of a crime being committed, and evidence revealing that the crime was actually committed, are key components of our American System of Justice. Without evidence, injury to another party, or the actual breaking of an existing law, there is no crime. If there is no crime, and there is no evidence, there is no case. There is no evidence that Trump actually committed any of the acts that he’s being charged with because he did not commit any of the actions he is being charged with. They know that, which is why he is not being charged with actually committing any of the crimes on any of the indictments. He’s being charged on each and every one of them with “conspiracy” to commit the crimes. He’s essentially guilty of saying things that may be interpreted by some people that he may possibly do something possibly in the future that might be considered a crime. Conspiracy to do something is generally not a crime unless, as with actually committing a crime, there is hard evidence showing that the conspiracy existed, and that actions were taken to commit the crime the conspiracy is regarding.
In the case of Trump, none of that exists.
The conspiracy charges were simply a way to get an indictment in place, and then go to court, evidence or no evidence, because the leftist judges chosen for the cases were going to play the game the progressive leftists wanted to tie Trump up in court during an election season whether evidence existed, or not.
In short, Trump is guilty of thought crimes that cannot be proven for the purpose of tying him up with legal troubles during the election year in the hopes of either turning voters off, or using the system with the proper leftist judges in place that might somehow land him in jail. Or, if they can’t get him behind bars, at least take as much money as they can from him, and destroy his business world, which they hope might neutralize him and his influence. Letitia James, Attorney General for the State of New York, is fully aware of the game being played, and is playing her role the best she can seeking seizure of his properties and to drain him of as much money as possible.
Whether or not he is actually guilty of any of the crimes he is being charged with conspiring to commit is irrelevant to these people. The game has nothing to do with the truth, the law, justice, or fairness. It is all about ruining Trump with accusations, and the hope that some kind of lucky stroke may destroy him professionally or politically…just in case they can’t overcome his overwhelming popularity when the election arrives in November.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is not the actual committing of a crime, but who cares when you can destroy the man in the process. Truth is not the desire of the left. Their goal is simply to stop the one man who managed to somehow stick such a large stick in their spokes that it stopped the destruction of America they had been working on during the four years of his presidency.
The conspiracy charges act as a way of charging Trump with crimes the progressive left thinks might occur if their evil opposition was given the chance, but have not.
George Orwell put into the pages of his book, 1984, the idea of Big Brother seeking out thought crimes, and convicting one of such a crime even though the actual crime was never committed. Minority Report, a film with Tom Cruise, based on a Philip K. Dick book of the same name, toyed with the idea of the future using “pre-crime” technology to stop crimes before they happened. However, the attempt to achieve Orwellian Big Brother control, or pre-crime conditions have already been attempted a number of times in American History, often during wartime. One might recognize the famous case of conspiracy prosecution in the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters.
That is, they were charged with saying things that might make the person hearing their words consider resisting the draft. Prosecutors were never able to show that the “conspirators” charged in the case actually committed any illegal acts, much less were ever even in the same room together. Still, Spock and three of his “co-conspirators” were found guilty in federal court. Ultimately, the case was set aside on appeal, and eventually vanished on a legal technicality. Spock, though sentenced to two years in prison, never served the time since the case was set aside in 1969 by a federal court. But, the federal legal doctrines underlying conspiracy charges remained in place despite the fogginess of the evidence, and the fact the case never actually put the conspirators behind bars.
Jessica Mitford’s 1969 book regarding The Trial of Dr. Spock, explains, “The law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor’s tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.”
Support Canada Free Press
Mitford further gives us the opinion of American Lawyer Clarence Seward Darrow explaining the absurdity of conspiracy prosecutions: “If a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.”
Why is it so absurd? Because, once again, conspiracy is based on words…speech and thought. You know, the very concepts enumerated in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, a clause that begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law.” If Congress shall make no law regarding speech (words, thoughts, opinions), then no laws must exist at the federal level, no laws may be acted upon at the federal level, and no court may apply such laws because they are not supposed to exist in the first place. Innocent until proven guilty means something had to have happened in the first place for guilt to be proven. A charge must have enough evidence to result in a conviction of a crime that was actually committed. Thinking about it, and talking about it, does not a crime make.
Activities to treat one’s words and thoughts as a crime, and to then pursue legally a person for daring to commit such actions are, well, criminal in their own right. Such are the activities of tyrants.
Tyrants are willing to do whatever it takes to silence their opponents, and eliminate them. Conspiracy convictions are basically based on circumstantial evidence. The government owns the prosecutors and the judges in the case, however, so whether it is circumstantial or hearsay doesn’t matter to them. Their rules are in play, and the government has all of the resources it needs to keep throwing at the case all the evidence they need to support their claim of conspiracy, whether any of it is connected to the allegations, or not. It works well when related to those who protest or stand against government policies. First, it silences or destroys the target, and second, it fills everyone else with fear who might dare to protest or stand against government policies. And, it’s a great way to circumvent the First Amendment.
Any assembly or language used by any person might be considered a part of some kind of conspiracy in the eyes of the government, therefore such assembly and language may be targeted and prosecuted. As a citizen, the theory goes, you will then be more reluctant to engage in activities or gatherings that might be frowned upon by the government. January 6 is a great example. When you hear the story of a 71 year old grandmother of seven grandchildren who was at the Capitol for ten minutes, who did nothing wrong but talk to a few people, pray, and even exchange words with a policeman, being convicted with a possible sentence of one year in federal prison and $200,000 in fines, you’re not exactly going to jump at going to any other protest, especially in Washington D.C., are you? And then, when the alleged leader of the “insurrection,” Donald Trump, is being hit the way he is with conspiracy charges and lawsuit after lawsuit, the progressive left figures you’ll distance yourself from him, as well. It’s a great way for the government to regulate associations, and silence any dissent.
Let’s not confuse what we are talking about with conspiracies that involve multiple persons, hard evidence regarding the plans to commit a crime, and the person or persons taking actions to commit the crime. I get it. Conspiracy with evidence and true plans for actual crimes exists, and can be prosecuted. But, those kinds of plans differ greatly from political talk and expressed opinions about what a person thinks ought to be done to get our country back on track. With real criminal conspiracy the words do not need to be interpreted to figure out what was meant. If there is a conspiracy to murder someone, and the conspirators say they will be murdering the person, and there is evidence showing that, it is quite different from talk by someone opposing some government institution or law.
Did the alleged political conspirator intend for his opinions to incite certain actions? And if so, how do you “prove” it without relying on assertions and assumptions that exist because the person is considered a political enemy? And if assumptions and interpretation is allowed to be used to chase such a consideration, is it possible to misinterpret, and put innocent people in prison for simply exercising their First Amendment enumerated rights? And, if that’s the case, how is it, since the First Amendment begins with the words “Congress shall make no law,” possible that anyone can be prosecuted federally for speaking the alleged conspiratorial words in the first place?
Enter, stage left, Jack Smith. Special Counsel Jack Smith, has targeted Trump with numerous different conspiracy charges; conspiracy of trying to overturn the 2020 election, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede Congress on January 6, and that Trump conspired “against the right to vote.”
Where’s the stack of evidence? Did the crimes ever manifest in any way? Were specific actions taken to carry out the crimes? Who did Trump build his conspiracies with? Were there even any actual co-conspirators? Where are the documents regarding any agreement to commit the crimes Trump is charged with conspiring in regards to?
The evidence is built around only what Trump said. Trump, according to Smith, created “widespread mistrust…through pervasive and destabilizing lies.” That’s it. Trump dared to publicly express his opinions, and because he is widely listened to by many people it could be considered that his words may have created mistrust of the government and the election process, opinions of which people were free to accept or reject.
There is no other evidence, and the conspiracies have been presented without any clear intent or a trail of actions taken to carry out the conspiracies. Trump did not tell people what to do, or how to do it. He did not instruct people to commit insurrection, nor did he tell anyone to try to stop any of the process regarding the election. He simply “knowingly” spread information the government claims to be false. Since the government claims the information is false, then it must be false, and somehow Trump knew these statements were false even though there is no evidence that Trump believes his statements were actually false.
Trump, therefore, is guilty of possessing and exercising his natural right to free speech, which includes saying things that questions governmental activities, and whether or not there were any problems with the 2020 Election. Freedom of Speech includes having opinions, and expressing them, and even proclaiming that it is possible that the recent elections were carried out in a manner that violates the law. Those opinions, however, don’t fit the leftist narrative; therefore, from the progressive left’s point of view, those opinions must be silenced, and the presenter of such opinions must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (or at least the law as the progressive left views it when it comes to their twisted narrative).
Seventy percent of federal judges, I have been told, lean leftward. Therefore, the legal system at the federal level will probably lean against anyone who opposes leftist policy. With the right judge, and a jury chosen carefully, there is a good chance that Smith or some other prosecutor could do what the progressive left has dreamed of doing ever since Trump first emerged on the scene; take him out permanently.
From the progressive left’s point of view the First Amendment impedes their quest for power; especially when wielded by someone as dangerous to their tyranny as Donald J. Trump. But, once they eliminate Trump, and the MAGA Republican movement, next will be the elimination of the Constitution, our natural rights, Christians who believe God gave them their rights, and anyone else who dares to oppose them. Therefore, the 2024 Election may very well not only be the most important election in the history of the country, but the crossroads during which the United States either returns to a path headed back towards sanity, or a path headed towards leftist tyranny and the destruction of our constitutional federal republic.
View Comments
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.