When They've Come For The Lawyers, It Might Be Too Late.
Many aspects of the Georgia RICO case are proof positive it is a fraudulent show trial, but one is unassailable.
Recently, the Democrat Party crossed yet another Rubicon (if that is even possible) by formerly admitting that Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts, commonly called “RICO,” are nothing more than an tool for the government to prosecute fraudulently anyone it does not like. There are many aspects of the Trump RICO indictment that prove that it is, in fact, a fascist show trial. However, one in particular stands out as unassailable—Fani Willis indicted the lawyers, all to the Left’s unending glee. We have written about the danger of this before, and the Left has only gotten more aggressive in its attacking this fundamental right.
Before turning to why her indicting the suits proves Ms. Willis is not following the rule of law, it is important to understand the basics of a RICO law. These statutes sprung up in the early 70s as part of the Nixon Administration’s efforts to combat crime. To the extent such laws ever possessed any validity, it was because they allegedly were constructed to combat crimes that evaded local officials because they occurred across States lines, were beyond the reach of local law enforcement, or were escaping justice due to corruption at the State, County, or City level. While they were not exclusively designed to combat “organized crime,” or “the mob,” or “the Mafia,” that is principally how they were pitched to the public. This is because organized crime was well known and had a propensity to evade justice because it was difficult to define their conduct as criminal under traditional criminal codes and people, at least at this time, accepted the notion that bribing government officials would be more difficult the farther removed from local control one travelled. In light of the former, RICO statutes gave prosecutors far broader latitude than they had ever possessed under traditional common law codes in Western history.
Under these (perhaps imagined) restrictions, early RICO prosecutions were permitted and, in large part, were restricted to the mob or such similar organizations. However, this limitation eventually passed away, and with the indictment of Trump and others under Georgia’s RICO statute by Ms. Willis essentially has eviscerated. This is due to at least two (2) factors: (i) because of the statutes’ broadness and lack of any real limitation, only a prosecutors adherence to the rule of law prevents a RICO statute’s abuse, and, (ii) Democrats across the Country have abandoned any pretense of adherence to the rule of law, especially as it relates to Trump and his associates. As Alvin Bragg’s and Jack Smith indictments proved, even more limited, traditional criminal codes can be abused as well, but RICO unique features permit “indictment” for crimes not yet even imagined. Ms. Willis left no about that this.
To understand why RICO statutes are so dangerous in the hands of rogue individuals, consider two (2) of their more problematic aspects: (i) almost anything can be described a “criminal enterprise,” and (ii) once a “criminal enterprise” is identified, or, imagined, just about any criminal statute may be employed to then demonstrate at least (2) “predicate acts” towards the violation of such criminal statute as a “criminal enterprise.” In turn, because “predicate acts” include, among other things, so-called “mail fraud” or “wire fraud,” every citizen commits multiple acts per hour that magically become “predicate acts” if he or she has been identified as part of the “criminal enterprise.” For example, using your phone is consider “wire fraud,” as is sending an e-mail, etc. (now you know why in mobster movies, the bosses insisted on speaking in person). As anyone can imagine, when this is the case, demonstrating “predicate acts” ceases to become a check on fraudulent prosecution.
Which brings us back to the Trump RICO indictment. There are many ways to know it is improper if you understand the true reason for the statute—to prosecute crimes and criminals that otherwise evaded traditional criminal codes. Obviously this is not the case with Trump as it relates to his challenge to his supposed loss of the State in the 2020 election. If he had truly attempted to “overturn the election,” he would be subject to prosecution under the laws safeguarding our elections. Since Ms. Willis is not employing those laws, nor are Georgia’s State officials or the Federal government, there is no purpose to Trump’s indictment as it relates to the election other than to prosecute him (and others) for the sake of prosecuting him. Your own imagination might explain why she might desire to prosecute him, but that is of no moment—in fact, the prosecution is improper.
As hinted above, one factor about the prosecution stands out above others and that is the indictment of the lawyers. This factor is less intuitive and requires an understanding of the role of the lawyer in the American system. Access to the courts, and, by extension, access to counsel was one of the many reasons for the formation of the United States. It is among the most, if not the most, cherished rights were used to possess. In light of this fact, the Founders insured that this right would be protected in many ways, including that attorneys would be protected from punishment for advocating in good faith to change existing laws. Consider, by way of example, that former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, before he was elevated to the Supreme Court, argued the case of Brown v. Board of Education. At the time that he argued that Black citizens were entitled to equal access to public education, that position was frivolous—separate but equal had been the law of the land for decades. Marshall was not prosecuted for his advocacy because the American legal system, in order to protect the sacred right to access to the courts, does not permit the prosecution of lawyers for advocating, even if he or she is advocating for something that at the time would be frivolous or unimaginable. Georgia’s code, like the codes of all States and the Federal government, contains many such exemptions for attorneys.
Fani Willis’ decision to prosecute Trump’s attorneys for advising the former President about potential mechanisms for challenging Biden’s certification cannot be anything other than improper when one understands how far an American’s right to access the courts extends. This right is grounded in many places and none less important than the First Amendment right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Of course, neither Ms. Willis nor the Democrat establishment, both political officials and Media, appear to care about the rule of law or Americans’ formerly cherished freedoms. Until they are entirely eliminated from the public’s knowledge and sphere, they can still provide a tell for fraudulent conducted carried out under the guise of proper government process.