How do you know it’s a political prosecution (lawfare)?
“And all I said was that if you’ve done something illegal, if you’ve used the government inappropriately and against the law, you should be held accountable,” she said in response to Trump’s criticism, according to Robinson.
But Slotkin’s original remarks weren’t simply about prosecuting identifiable crimes. They were about sending a warning to young people considering employment in the Trump administration.
They were about intimidation – political “lawfare” of a type quite common with Democrats.
For another excellent example, please see the Dershowitz quotes in this post about The 65 Project, a group promoting lawfare designed to intimidate lawyers who might work for Trump. From Dershowitz:
There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. When these threats first emerged, I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: if you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat — and they are taking it seriously.
As usual with lawfare, The 65 Project describes itself as defending democracy and the rule of law. Orwellian.
How can one tell the difference between a bona fide prosecution and lawfare? For many people, it’s simple: if my party does it, it’s a bona fide prosecution. If the other party does it, it’s nefarious lawfare. But of course, that’s an obviously partisan test.
The real test goes like this:
(1) Is the evidence solid?
(2) Is the violation one that isn’t suddenly made up, nor is the statute stretched beyond recognition?
(3) Were the defendant’s rights violated in building the case?
(4) Are known felons the only people ready to testify against the defendant?
There’s probably more, but you get the idea.
Before this.is over there will be bodies.
That’s obviously NOT what Slotkin said. Her original statement was that she wanted the threat of unspecified prosecution to intimidate anyone thinking about working for the current administration. She should be censured by the Senate as a bare minimum.
#5) If the only prosecution for this infraction (for 5? 10? 20 years?) is the accused, it’s likely political.
Yes, like Trump.
But immigration fraud has often been prosecuted, tho the recent news hasn’t noted how often it’s been caught & prosecuted.
Lying about your age is often done.
The legal system is a lot less precise than most people assume. Recall the old saw about how a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” That’s not far from true. Especially when your defendant is anything other than Eagle Scout and given the thicket of statutes, it’s actually not that difficult to twist and warp a fact pattern to make it fit into some kind of existing crime or civil violation. (Which is why I often say that Carter Page is, undoubtedly, the most innocent man in America.)
I don’t think most people grasp the degree to which the criminal justice system in particular relies on the good faith, judgement, and restraint of the state’s attorneys. If you have unscrupulous or ideologically blinkered prosecutors, look out. And that’s what we have.
I think Bill Barr propounded the best standard (and remember, this comment was in defense of Trump). If the prosecution of a political opponent is for anything other than a “meat and potatoes” crime, then there is a good chance that it is lawfare.
That is truly laughable Bauxite, CC™-R, invoking Bill Barr as a standard about what can reasonably be prosecuted as unlawful. He did squat when Portland Federal facilities were under physical attack from 2019 – 2020, and when Seattle Federal facilities were attacked and the infamous Autonomous Zone in Capitol Hill area was established. He talked a lot and did NOTHING.
CC™-R, you are truly a tool.
Humans are Natural Born Criminals — then some of them decided to come up with ‘Laws against what those other people were doing…‘
There wasnt a single piece of lawfare he didnt buy even cassidy hutchinson but mind that was like 80% of most accountd that didnt look past the headline
Mara lago the atlanta imbroglio the dc thoughtcrime
Oh noes, not the dreaded “Laws of Man,” next it will be the never ending song, “DidnDuNuffin.”
FAFO is what happens to those who think laws are optional and get caught when a LEO isn’t around.
The wisdom of The Oracle of Dufus is fantastic. An antidote is “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.”
om – You should consider changing your handle to “ad hominem.” That’s about all you’ve got.
Had to look it up (but AI Overview dictionaries are good for such)
I think the only way to stop this is to go on offense. There are already laws against malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Conservatives need to go after people who abuse the legal system with the same force that is used on them. To “Nifong” somebody needs to become a common expression.
Bauxite, aka, CC™-R :
Oh noes, the ad hominem defense!
What did Bill Barr do when Antifa and the Portland area DAs laid siege to the Federal Courthouse and ICE/DHS facility for more than two years (2018 -2021)? Were there any, any, federal indictments let alone convictions?
Did he rouse the DOJ to identify the foreign (Italy) leftist organizations that provide technical infrastructure for Antifa?
Did he get Antifa designated as a terrorist organization?
Your poster boy for even handed enforcement of federal law was particularly in his ineffectiveness before the 2020 presidential election.
But you are good with that record it appears.
You have been a Concerned Conservative (CC™) voice of the don’t do anything to rock the boat or upset the Democrats for at least eight years.
My only surprise today is you resisted the urge(?) to make it about President Trump, not Alissa Slotkin.
And to Karmi:
Your “Laws of Man” and “all men are criminals” trope is particularly juvenile for an eighty year old person.
om= ad hominemRecall the old saw about how a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.”
==
There was no such saw. The remark was by Sol Wachtler, once Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals in New York. It was that a grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich’. Grand juries in New York do not function as a check on prosecutors as they deliver a judgment of No True Bill only 0.3% of the time. It’s an argument for replacing them with magistrates conducting preliminary hearings, some of which would have adversary proceedings.
==
The machinations of the ’65 Project’ would have no effect if commissions responsible for evaluating complaints against members of the bar were impartial. And if they were impartial, the Project lawyers themselves would be disbarred.
WesternLensman:
https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/2112712564664582387
Elon (replying to WesternLensman):
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2112933289069887515
Oh noes, the facts come home to roost on CC™-R and The Oracle of Doofus.
Is fisking CC™-R ad hominem too?
As it has been said om, “on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”, it could be “ad canem“, and much less likely than say, “ad arborem” or “ad parietem“.
When, not if the Marxists win the government we will all get to learn about Lawfare.
Read a book on the 50s Russian show trials. Judge, Prosecutor and often the Defense attorney were all on the same team. Defendants who did nothing in the case would admit the fake crime and often executed shortly after.
Oh noes, “ad parietem.”
High school Latin fails me again, but we now have “approximates Intelligence” (aI) tools to help!
Evidently Kara Swisher is a lesbian who writes for New York magazine. Never heard of her.
Kara Swisher is a long time silicon valley social gadfly and tech journalist. She used to appear frequently on CNBC financial news, when I watched it years ago. After some horrific presidential debate that CNBC hosted, I quit watching the network. I’m guessing roughly ten years ago.
Just so we’re clear here:
Democratic Party strategies for getting back into power so that they can continue their orgy of destruction, rage, vindictiveness and vengeance:
https://instapundit.com/830707/
(How’s THAT for a national program!)
…Which brings us to DataRepublican (whose extraordinary work and research has been linked to several times on this site in the last week or so):
“10 Persons of Interest You Need to Know Now”—
https://x.com/schwalm5132/status/2112899006053466468?s=43
Opening graf:
@ Barry > Elon (replying to WesternLensman): “Live by the sword, die by the sword. Sounds like Swisher really wants to go to prison.” & “Which brings us to DataRepublican (whose extraordinary work and research has been linked to several times on this site in the last week or so”
I shudder to think what a terrible situation we would be in without Elon Musk and Jennica Pounds. I’m not sure Trump would have been re-elected with Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the un-canceling of that platform, and DataRepublican’s publication of deep analyses of generally public information (but really, really deeply buried) has been phenomenal.
I had forgotten that she became official this year – what a team!
(AI overview generated by my search request; I’m not sure how a writing stylebook would designate that kind of source).
All data from her website datarepublican.com.
Jennica Pounds (aka DataRepublican)
A Department of War Special Government Employee as of July 2026; previously assisted Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
If DataRepublican is correct it would be a terrible pity if Trump has to preempt these revolutionaries with a modified Night of the Long Knives.
Not really, kill these treasonous bastards.
@ Barry – One of DataRepublican’s “Ten Persons of Interest” is the formulator of “the 3.5 percent rule” — the satisfaction of which apparently is informing their plot. Because nonviolence is a critical component, this may even explain the lengths to which the media has strained to depict obviously violent activities as “mostly peaceful.”
Copilot Search: (primarily sourced from Wikipedia & commonslibrary.org)
(see below for more information, the sources are integrated in the text).
IMO, you can’t effectively use this participation basis for America as a whole: the country is too big for people to come together at any “peak event” in the critical number. The estimated U.S. population in 2026 is about 349.0 million people (per Copilot); 3.5% is 12,215,000 (per my calculator). There is NO venue large enough for that kind of crowd.
You have to count a percentage of the reasonably accessible population for a given event, e.g. in a state and combine similar events for a national total, e.g. all of a candidate’s rallies within a specified time frame. The methodology could get interesting.
Also: Who makes the computations, and can we trust them?
How do we know the protestors represent “real” participation and are not paid for?
How many “peak events” do you need to certify the required percentage has been met in a ” sustained” fashion, as presumably no government falls because of a single protest (although it can be the tipping point if the crisis has been growing, as for the USSR in particular).
IMO, it may be that Trump’s elections proved the rule, as I suspect he had more than 3.5% of the population at his rallies (counting all of them as one event), and the MAGA crowds were aggressively non-violent (including J6, despite the lawfare lies). The TEA Party movement also might have hit the threshold but didn’t have a champion to push implementing their program at that time.
***********
Back to the Search results: How It Works
The rule focuses on peak participation in nonviolent events, such as mass demonstrations or acts of civil disobedience, rather than cumulative participation over time. commonslibrary.org
(IOW, a couple of BIG crowds, rather than lots of small ones even though the total number of people in the latter might be larger than the former; it’s a visual benchmark rather than a computational one.)
The involvement of 3.5% of the population is significant because it:
Creates economic, political, and social disruption that imposes costs on elites. commonslibrary.org
Demonstrates broad public support, encouraging more people to join and legitimizing the movement. Harvard University
Can lead to defections among elites or security forces, weakening the government’s ability to resist change.
commonslibrary.org
Chenoweth emphasizes that the 3.5% figure is a rule of thumb, not a strict law. Other factors such as momentum, organization, strategic leadership, and sustainability are also critical for success. Harvard University
(Which DataRepublican just demonstrated the conspirators are working on.)
Historical and Modern Applications
Historically, movements like the Singing Revolution in Estonia (1988) and anti-apartheid campaigns in South Africa illustrate the effectiveness of large-scale nonviolent participation. commonslibrary.org
In recent years, the rule has been cited in U.S. protests, including the “No Kings” and “Hands Off” demonstrations in 2025, where organizers aimed to mobilize 3.5% of the population to influence policy and resist authoritarian tendencies. Wikipedia
(Aimed and failed miserably, especially the “No Kings” inanity.)
Key Insights
Nonviolent campaigns are generally twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. Center for American Progress
(So why do the Democrats keep rioting, if it’s not the best way to win friends and influence people?
Because they can with impunity (heretofore; that may be over), and the goal of the Left — now increasingly in competition with the leftist Party — is not to just change the way the government operates, or even who is in charge, that is “make it fall,” but to extinguish the American Republic completely. Violence weakens the society like inflammation weakens the body.)
The 3.5% threshold is based on active participation at peak events, not total support or cumulative involvement. commonslibrary.org
(I’m not really sure what they see as a distinction between the last two, but I think the reliance on the first factor is because event attendance can be “seen”, and cumulative or “unseen” totals cannot; see my caveats above)
The rule is most effective when movements are strategically organized, sustained, and inclusive, allowing participation from a broad cross-section of society. Harvard University
(I think it’s been made clear that all of the prominent protests we’ve seen are organized and sustained, but none of them are genuinely “inclusive” by definition: only the believers in that cause are included. However, I suspect the rule-makers mean “broad cross-section” as “people of all 76 genders, of any economic status” even though we can be pretty sure that most of them on the Left are the Rich and the Poor, and most of them on the Right are the Middleclass. Also, in re my caveats, since the relevant factor seems to be “we can see the bodies in the streets” then it might not matter if they are organic or contrived crowds, since the Regime Media is determined not to let their consumers know the latter exists).
In summary, the 3.5 percent rule provides a practical benchmark for civil resistance, highlighting the power of nonviolent collective action to achieve political change when a critical mass of the population is mobilized.
*********
@ Chases Eagles > “If DataRepublican is correct it would be a terrible pity if Trump has to preempt these revolutionaries with a modified Night of the Long Knives. Not really…”
Unfortunately, part of their plot includes trying to induce him to do something like that.
Back to Cynical Publius (h/t sdferr Open Thread 10/20): “As many of you know, in recent days Data Republican has been releasing transcripts, videos and audio recordings of a group of groups plotting to use violence to force President Trump to take protective actions (i.e., the Insurrection Act) that will result in the overthrow of our Constitution in favor of the will of Democrat governors.”
https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/2112564651724845366
They have been preparing the ground for their Constitution-breaking response to any protective action in the way they spin the news (including outright lying), indoctrinate students (literally for decades now), formulate new uses of words (“our democracy” and “silence is violence” and “my truth”) and convince far too many people that “the worst thing someone can possibly do to you is hurt your feelings and it’s okay to kill them if they do”.
The challenge is to stop the coup without going so far as to “kill these treasonous bastards” no matter how satisfying that would be on some level (“they never will be missed, I have a little list”). Part of being the Good Guys is that we don’t get to wield some of the weapons that the Bad Guys have no scruples about using.
Where is Data Republican getting her info? I have wondered this for a while. She did not get this from public records. Either surveillance was given to her or a leaker in an organization participating in this sedition did.
I tend to think the Trump people did it. Deliberately spiking the plot. Revealing the tactics and intent. Once again Trump is ahead of the enemy. Going forward if the left uses any of these methods in an effort to delegitimize our governing principles the debate won’t be about Trump the tyrant, it will be about the left’s use of CIA ‘Color Revolution’ tactics to bring down ‘Our Republic’.
Most Republican presidents would try to engage and ‘dialog’ with the protestors.
Trump is a ‘dictator’ – of the terms of the argument!
Hard to overthrow the constitution in favor of democrat governors if said democrat governors are dead.
Trump 2.0 has a stone cold killer in Pete Hegseth as SecWar. No one before him has been willing to whack drug smugglers, not “interdict, arrest and try” rather send them to hell.
What it means is that the good people have to get out there AND VOTE…(which is already obvious but perhaps not internalized like it ought be).
To be sure, if the results are not exactly to the liking of DPOTUS, the usual suspects will serve up a copious, gourmet dish of projection and clamor non-stop that the election was stolen.
– – – – – – – – –
Thanks AF, et al.
BTW, in your 12:56 am comment (second graf)…
…did you mean to write “without” instead of “with”?
Barry Meislin:
I clicked your X link “10 Persons of Interest You Need to Know Now.” Looking through the list I’m thinking:
Why do all these people look French?
Elon Musk threatens Hillary Clinton’s podcast partner Kara Swisher with prison after she claimed to know ‘what’s coming for him’ if Democrats take power
Using Google AI Mode I asked: ‘which party started talking about sending other party’s candidate to lockup first…dems or reps?‘
Note the hedge: “modern.” Go further back and it gets messy: Adams’ Federalists and the Alien and Sedition Acts; Jefferson’s treason pursuit of Aaron Burr; the Lincoln-era military arrest of Democrat Clement Vallandigham; and the Wilson-era Espionage Act prosecution of Eugene Debs, who then ran for president from prison in 1920.
So the peaceful transfer of power mostly held, but using the law against rivals never went away. Is the rhetoric just louder now, or is something actually different?
Lawfare happens every day across America…Rule of law and lawfare aren’t opposites – they’re two sides of the same ancient Hammurabi coin.
Molly Brown: “Where is Where is Data Republican getting her info?”
Here is Cynical Publius’ note about the sourcing:
Source: https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/2112707076078338525. Scroll all the way to the bottom of the post.
Huxley, great question.
Could it be that at the current stage of your fascinating life, practically everything looks French?
(IOW immersion. Or should that be “submersion”?…)
Hmm. Maybe IA can help out here….(and if it dare accuse you of hallucinating, you can read it the riot act…)
– – – – – – –
Karmi, that’s really interesting, but—what’s the expression?—oh yeah, put down the bong…
File under: Jack Smith (for starters).
@Barry Meislin: Could it be that at the current stage of your fascinating life, practically everything looks French?
Your point is well-taken, of course. After two weeks in France, seeing and hearing everyone look and speak French seems normal, even if I can barely understand any of it.
Still that spiky/tousled hair and glasses look is common on women. Likewise the chubby balding guy with neatly cut hair and goatee. Something about the noses too. The intense or satisfied look as well.
I look in the mirror and I definitely don’t look French.
The café life and people-watching are great here.
A classic P. G. Wodehouse
“Into the face of the young man who sat on the terrace of the Hotel Magnifique at Cannes there had crept a look of furtive shame, the shifty hangdog look which announces that an Englishman is about to talk French.”
If I might suggest an alternative (aimed at a similar end) it would be to invite a representative group of these named individual leaders of this backroom-movement organizers to an open forum — to a colloquy so to speak — at the White House, hosted by the Executive and attended by politically interested opponents of this shadow color-revolution, from among the Legislative branch and the public writ large who step forward to defend the founding principles of our Constitutional order, there to have it out, clashing ideas against ideas where making exposure in contest may put paid to the bad and promote the better.
sdferr,
No. The MSM would run cover and spin it in the seditionists favor. That’s how we ended up here in the first place!
Huxley,
All the women on that list look like dykes. Is that mean?
Maybe French women do nowadays but I didn’t see when in France last year. All the young ones in very casual ‘American’ style. I did see an elderly woman who epitomised the classic Frenchwoman of the past in line for the D’Orsay. Mid 80’s at least but everything perfect. Hair in a perfect silver bob. Creamy white silk blouse over pressed navy slacks, pearl necklace, earrings and a coordinating scarf around her neck. Navy pumps with navy lace patterned stockings. Love to see it.
Hubert,
I don’t doubt Data Republicans material, I just wonder about her sources as they are so good! Bit of a hint in your CP quote; ‘DR got a tip…’ and ‘Trump appointed Peter Marocco…’ vouching for their legitimacy.
Molly Brown:
There certainly are many beautiful French women. There is practically a beauty arms race here. I’d say, Oh, la, la, but I know I can’t pull it off.
I’d rather trust discernment. Cowardice is a bad look. Forthright argument, bringing the shadowy into light in a stark conflict is better than turning to straight up murder of political opposition. If other alternatives present I’d be glad to think them over. Meantime, I’ll stand with collegial dialog looking to defeat the backward going leftists. Mainstream media obfuscation be damned.
sdferr,
Agree with all your points but I think the most favorable forum is Social Media. Of course a White House meeting would be posted in full there but a lot of older voters only get their info from the MSM. And I think a lot of non critical thinkers would buy into the DSA bs. They are really good at their bs, unfortunately. I could be wrong, something like that could wake up people to the threat.
Actually, it looks like bringing the shadowy into the light has already begun on SM!
Huxley,
I was so impressed by the command of English young French people had. Very American style English, too. So I asked where they learned and they all told me the same thing – they polished their English by watching ‘Friends’!
BTW, so impressed by your dedication to learning French. Wish I had it.
If one allows only a touch of imagination in, think of the mere entertainment value of Stephen Miller vs the Chenoweth powerhouse!
Bhwahahahaha
Molly Brown: ah, got it. Interestingly, Jennica Pounds/DataRepublican has been a Special Government Employee with the Department of War since July 2026. My hunch is that she was tipped off to the Google Drive address by someone in that department, which includes (wait for it) the NSA.
We (conservatives) may finally be learning how to turn the Left’s weapons against it. Only took 60 years.
Huxley: French women are indeed fine, but the real knockouts are in Poland and the Baltic states. Anyway, enjoy. An appreciative “Très belle, mademoiselle” would probably not be taken amiss. Especially if accompanied by a gentlemanly tip of the hat:
https://www.chapellerie-traclet.com/en/186-men
Get a Borsalino, open a pack of Gitanes, and kick it like Alain Delon and Jean-Paul Belmondo.
sdferr,
LOL. Must watch TV!
@ Barry Meislin > “…did you mean to write “without” instead of “with”?”
Thanks for catching that! Comes from making too many long comments too late at night. But it’s my favorite hobby!
… they polished their English by watching ‘Friends’!
Molly Brown:
Quelle coïncidence! Yesterday I happened on a bookstore that sold used DVDs and bought four seasons of “Friends” in French, two of “Seinfeld,” a James Bond and “Titanic” for 35 euros.
In the US it’s difficult to find DVDs with French audio and subtitles. I am quite familiar with “Friends” as well as the others. Listening comprehension is by far my weakest link in French.
I have a gift, or at least an enthusiasm, for self-learning that doesn’t translate to the classroom. I’ve dropped out of college twice. Henceforth I’ll put my money, when I do, into French tutoring not courses.
sdferr on October 22, 2026 at 3:59 pm said:
“If one allows only a touch of imagination in, think of the mere entertainment value of Stephen Miller vs the Chenoweth powerhouse!”
I came across this robust countering of congressional questioning yesterday; and thus might add Mike Howell to the Miller team [4 mintues]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffuYXMicZHs