WHEN DOES POLITICAL DIRTY TRICKS CROSS THE LINE INTO CRIMINALITY?

This article examines how Democratic party lawyers strategically employed political dirty tricks (Legal Lawfare) tactics to interfere in three Presidential elections and obstruct a Presidency.

As we delve into the Russian Hoax Conspiracy, a crime of monumental scale involving election interference in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 Presidential elections, it's alarming to note the silence of the Rule of Law Community. This group of legal professionals and scholars, who advocate for the rule of law and the proper functioning of democratic institutions, were complicit in their silence in the Russian Hoax Conspiracy. Their inaction is a stark disappointment and a Call to action for all who value the integrity of our democracy.

The final overt act of the Conspiracy was the weaponization of the U.S. District Courts by Democratic Lawyers in exploiting the law to interfere in Presidential elections law to undermine the will of the people who elected President Trump in 2024. For the purposes of this article, exploiting the law to interfere in Presidential elections is an overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement that establishes a pattern of Conspiracy.

This underscores the urgent and crucial need for a Special Prosecutor to thoroughly investigate the coordinated plan by the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and high-level government officials to interfere in elections. The appointment of a Special Prosecutor is not just a formality but a necessary step towards ensuring justice and fairness in our political system. This appointment is crucial and cannot be delayed. It is a key to restoring trust in our democratic process.

PROSECUTION DECISIONS -RUSSIAN HOAX CONSPIRACY

Special Counsel (SC) Durham's framing of the Hillary Clinton-DNC plan as political dirty tricks or unverified intelligence rather than a criminal conspiratorial agreement to interfere in the 2016 election reflects a prosecutorial decision, likely influenced by Attorney General (AG) Barr's scope memo, which focused Durham on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misconduct rather than a broader conspiracy involving high-level officials. ¹

SC Durham's decision to treat Hillary Clinton-DNC's plan as "raw, unverified intelligence" was a prosecutorial choice, not a lack of evidence, and does not negate the existence of a conspiratorial agreement; rather, it reflects practical and jurisdictional constraints.

The goal of the plan was to defraud the United States by impairing the lawful functioning of the electoral process through deceit (e.g., the “Steele Dossier,” Alfa Bank allegations, and the FBI's baseless probes.)

SC Durham's Findings: Supported by Durham's report and indictments, details coordinated actions by the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and Perkins Coie lawyers (Michael Sussmann and Marc Elias) to fabricate and disseminate false information tying Trump to Russia (e.g., the Steele dossier, Alfa Bank allegations). Durham's indictment of Sussmann explicitly alleges a 'joint venture' (a term synonymous with Conspiracy) involving Sussmann, Rodney Joffe, and others to mislead the American people about the Alfa Bank data, with billing records confirming that the Clinton campaign funded these efforts. The Igor Danchenko indictment further exposes the “Steele Dossier's” reliance on unverified sources (e.g., Igor Danchenko, Charles Dolan, and Cody Shearer). Dolan and Shearer are two Democratic Party-political operatives called "fixers" who had long ties to the Clintons and were part of the Brooking Institute, a Democratic party think tank. Danchenko and Norm Eisen were also affiliated with the Brookings Institute, which played a key role in the dissemination of the bogus “Steele Dossier,” suggesting a deliberate and egregious attempt to deceive and betray the trust of the American people.

SC Durham's findings and the release of the information on the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation meticulously outline a pattern of interference:

• 2016: FBI's Crossfire Hurricane, initiated without sufficient predication, targeted Trump associates (Carter Page, General Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Manafort) based on unverified intelligence (Steele dossier). Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan's notes, as well as the texts between FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, confirm the awareness of President Obama and President Biden, suggesting high-level involvement. The Alfa Bank allegations, funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, were used to mislead the FBI and CIA. FBI was operating Honey Pot operations against Republic Presidential Candidates. Patrick Brynes claims that FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok was operating a targeting honey pot operation against Republican Candidates for President in 2015 prior to the 2016 Election. Byrnes alleges Strzok was using Maria Butina a alleged Russian spy as the honey pot.²

• 2020: The FBI's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, corroborated by the Twitter Files and letters from 51 intelligence officials (orchestrated by Tony Blinken, President Biden's Secretary of State), falsely labeled it as Russian disinformation, potentially influencing voter perceptions. Time Magazine's 2021 article and Democratic Lawyer Norm Eisen's admissions reveal a "well-funded cabal" rigging the election. Lastly, the FBI hid China efforts to meddle in the 2020 election. ³

• 2024: The FBI's Arctic Frost investigation, initiated by FBI Supervisory Special Agent Timothy Thibault, contributed to SC Jack Smith's case against Trump, continuing the pattern of baseless probes. Senator Chuck Grassley's disclosures about "Prohibited Access" files suggest ongoing evidence suppression, potentially hiding exculpatory material.

• These acts, linked by common actors (e.g., Marc Elias, Norm Eisen) and methods (disinformation, Lawfare), form a coherent pattern of a continuing conspiracy to defraud the public and obstruct Trump's presidency. The pattern of coordinated actions—Clinton campaign's disinformation, FBI's biased investigations, media leaks, and Lawfare—meets the Supreme Court's standard for proving Conspiracy through circumstantial evidence.

LAWFARE OVERT ACTS

In criminal law, an overt act can clearly be proven by evidence and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to mere intention in the mind to commit a crime. ⁴

Such an act, even if innocent, can potentially be used as evidence against someone at trial to show participation in a crime.

For instance, purchasing a ski mask is not a crime; however, if the purchase is used to conceal the identity of a person during the commission of a crime, such as the planning of a bank robbery, it would be an overt act.

The Durham prosecutors ignored the conspiratorial agreement that there was a plan by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to taint Trump with a crime of conspiring with the Russians, accusing Trump of election interference, dismissing the plan as unverified intelligence. It explains to the American people why there was no investigation of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. ⁵

The evidence collected by the SC Durham investigation is not just a collection of facts but a revelation of the gravity of the Conspiracy by Hillary Clinton, the DNC, President Obama, and President Biden to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. These are not just crimes but crimes with significant consequences. When the evidence showed it was Hillary Clinton and the DNC that were behind the funding of the bogus "Steele Dossier. "

"Lawfare" refers to the use of legal systems and principles to achieve a political objective. In this case, it relates to the strategic use of lawsuits and legal challenges, often without merit, to obstruct the Trump administration's policies and objectives. This tactic, known as "Lawfare," has been employed extensively against the Trump administration, with profound implications.

Examining how these Democratic lawyers implemented their lawfare campaign by judge-shopping in heavily Democratic districts is a legal tactic; however, the tactics become illegal when used to further the commission of a crime, as their actions prove an intent to obstruct justice and interfere with Presidential elections.

The Federal Judge ruled in the case against Michael Sussmann, who was accused of lying to a Federal Agent by giving a false statement, that the communications of the law firm of Perkins Coie were privileged, thereby denying Durham prosecutors the ability to gather evidence in establishing a pattern of Conspiracy. Under the law, a law firm cannot claim privilege if its intent is to hide criminal actions. In the Russian Hoax Conspiracy, Perkins Coie's claim that its communications are privileged would not be applicable in a Conspiracy investigation, as the law firm played a prominent role in the Conspiracy. Additionally, communications of the lawyers involved in the criminal and civil investigations of Trump in New York, Atlanta, and Florida would be critical in proving that these investigations were coordinated and planned, aimed at framing Trump for crimes he did not commit.

Norm Eisen, a renowned expert on “Color revolutions,” a system employed by US intelligence to overthrow undesirable regimes or political movements, is a figure of significant influence. His expertise in this area is widely acknowledged. Following the 2020 Presidential Election, Eisen proudly shared how he and top Democrats, along with intelligence experts, utilized this model to shift the US election from President Trump in 2020. Eisen's admission confirms the story in Time Magazine of a "conspiracy" among a "well-funded cabal of powerful people" in an "extraordinary shadow effort" that successfully pushed Trump from office. ⁶

Margot Cleveland, a respected legal scholar, has connected the dots in her June 3, 2024, article in "The Federalist," showing the efforts by Biden's DOJ and the New York County (Manhattan) authorities to maliciously construct and execute a court case made of patently false charges against their principal political adversary, Donald Trump, by abusing state and federal law. ⁷

President Joe Biden's comment regrets tapping Merrick Garland to be U.S. Attorney General (AG). He privately complains that the Department of Justice didn't do enough to prosecute President-elect Donald Trump, people familiar with his comments told The Washington Post. Biden's comment is an admission as it shows his knowledge of Trump's prosecution, implicating Biden in the Conspiracy to destroy Trump by using Lawfare, a term that refers to interfering in the 2024 Presidential election. ⁸

Now that the Democrats and their surrogates have no power in the Federal Government as Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, they have resorted to the last desperate measures of using Lawfare by selectively choosing the courts and judges who are perceived to be politically motivated, often referred to as "activist judges," to place holds and freezes on policies that the President wants to enact.

From the moment Donald Trump was sworn into office, a network of activist judges, many of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, has worked tirelessly to obstruct his policies, undermine his authority, and interfere in the democratic process. Currently, over 170 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration.

OVERT ACT THE PLAN TO OBSTRUCT THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Left-Wing District Court Judges are now exceeding their authority in trying to obstruct President Trump's policies. It was all well planned, and the planning began during the summer, well before the election. From Politico in a July 2024 article titled "Democratic Lawyers get ready: 'If Trump wins, there will be chaos": ⁹

"Now, Democratic attorneys around the country are already gearing up for the possibility of a second Trump administration by beginning to map out an aggressive legal strategy to fight him again in court — this time with a fresh sense of urgency. Democratic attorneys general are exploring the hiring of outside experts and dispatching staff to study areas of the law that are anticipated to be targeted, such as reproductive health, immigration, and the environment. They identify staff members who are best equipped to fight assertions of executive privilege — which Trump invoked in his most high-profile controversies — and states that are best positioned to lead bigger cases.

The early but serious preparations acknowledge that a second Trump presidency would entail these lawyers' filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the Federal Government to mitigate what they view as a significant threat to democracy and individual rights.

In a PBS interview on the "PBS NewsHour, on March 25, 2025" the Senate Minority leader gave away the game plan when he said: ¹⁰

"We did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time.

We hope that the appellate courts will uphold those rulings when they reach the Supreme Court."

Chuck Schumer admits the quiet part out loud— Democrat party-appointed Judges are really activists who are there to stop Trump. Schumer's statement is an admission that Left-Wing District Court Judges are now exceeding their authority in trying to obstruct President Trump's policies.

The Special Prosecutor's role is to test allegations by gathering evidence. Documentary evidence (e.g., CIA Brennan's notes, FBI Special Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's texts, declassified files) and overt acts align with how prosecutors build conspiracy cases for prosecution. This is why a Special Prosecutor is needed with sufficient resources reminder: "SC Robert Muller had 19 Democratic party lawyers and a budget of 35 million dollars and 22 months investigation." If there is no investigation, then no one will ever be held accountable for the Crime of the Century.

SC Durham's prosecution decision to treat the plan as political dirty tricks instead of evidence of a crime, along with the limited scope and biased judicial environment (e.g., the D.C. District Courts), prevented a thorough investigation into the Conspiracy. Still, new evidence (e.g., Senator Chuck Grassley's probe of the FBI) justifies revisiting the issue. It's about restoring trust in the rule of law and elections, coupled with public outrage (reflected in X posts and alt-media), which supports an independent probe to address perceived injustices.

References and Citations

1.

2. https://thecinemaholic.com/where-are-patrick-byrne-and-maria-butina-now/

3. https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fbi-documents-show-it-sat-intel-potential-chinese-plan-meddle-2020

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act#:~:text=In%20criminal%20law%2C%20an%20overt%20act%20is%20the,the%20mind%20to%20commit%20a%20crime.%20%5B1%5D%20

5. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/read-the-durham-report/

6. Color Revolution: Norm Eisen’s Strategy to Oust Trump

7. https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/03/joe-bidens-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-criminal-prosecutions-of-trump/

8. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/wake-up-call-biden-said-he-regrets-garland-as-attorney-general

9. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/03/democrat-attorney-general-trump-2024-00165490

10. https://yournews.com/2025/03/21/3317787/schumer-acknowledges-court-stacking-strategy-to-undermine-trump-we-put/

[Note: This analysis was created by a former Retired DEA Supervisory Special Agent John Seaman with over 30 years’ experience conducting complex conspiracy investigations. Seaman is the co-author of an article Taliban Include Heroin Kingpins in Leadership - by Gretchen Peters and John Seaman - SpyTalk and author of Ideology and Political Correctness Trump Reality and reference in article The secret story of how America lost the drug war with the Taliban - POLITICOPOLITICO]