Dakota Beacon

What is “lawfare?” Who has a clue? In a word, consider lawfare a form of political combat. The term is a blend of “law” and “warfare.” One definition would be the leveraging of legal mechanisms to damage or delegitimize an opponent or to deter an individual from exercising their legal rights. Another definition refers to the strategic use of legal systems and institutions to achieve specific objectives. Lawfare can take various forms including wasting an opponent’s time and resources through legal actions and winning a public relations victory by framing legal disputes in a certain way.

Lawfare has origins dating back to the 1950s but remained unknown until 1999 when Chinese military officers used the term in their book “Unrestricted Warfare.” In his several papers on the subject General Dunlap defined “lawfare” as: “the strategy of using -- or misusing -- law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”

Yes, we are a nation of laws. Yes, most people are law abiding citizens. Yet, we are not aware of the existence of most laws. There are so many laws in effect that impose control over our lives that most people unknowingly violate at least one of them every day. These are laws enacted by congress and state legislatures. However, beyond these are the rules and regulations levied by the administrative state.

Two thousand-to-three-thousand-page bills are written by lobbyists and then bastardized by politicians inserting unrelated amendments and clauses. If Representatives and Senators do not have time to read the bills before voting, how should we be expected to know the law?

True, we are not prosecuted for every infraction. Nevertheless, if we are on the wrong side of conventional wisdom, we may easily become the target of some faction looking to impose their will. These provocateurs could easily bring charges against any violator. Even when the charges are frivolous, the victim could be ground down by legal costs.

A recent example involves radio personality Mark Steyn, an earlier guest host for Rush Limbaugh. Steyn wrote a piece for the “National Review” magazine critical of Michael Mann, PhD, a huge proponent of manmade climate change. Mann sued “National Review” and Mark Steyn for defamation. After thirteen years of procedural delays the trial finally commenced. Court proceedings showed that Mann’s actions were stifling free speech. Nevertheless, the Washington, DC jury found Steyn guilty of defamation resulting in a $1 million judgement, ergo, a win for climate change advocates.

Other lawfare victims come to mind.

  --Lieutenant General Michael Flynn former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and adviser to the Trump campaign charged with misstatements to the FBI about conversations with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak;

  --Roger Stone served as advisor to Trump’s 2016 campaign and found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation;

  --Rudy Guiliani, former mayor of New York City and Trump attorney charged in Georgia with attempt to overturn the 2020 election;

  --Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist under Trump and found guilty of contempt of congress during investigation of January 6 disturbance at US Capitol;

  --Dinesh D'Souza, author, film maker, Christian apologist convicted of illegal campaign contributions;

  --George Papadopoulos 2016 Trump campaign adviser for oil and energy and charged with misstatements to the FBI;

  --and of course Donald Trump himself. Others falling victim to lawfare as an abuse of the judicial system include the following. Check the charges and sentencing for yourself. Tom Delay, former Speaker of the House); Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia; Rick Perry, Governor of Texas; Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas; Trump associates Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

Recognize that one of the purposes of lawfare is to remove a person from the political scene. Each of the people listed above is both intelligent and knowledgeable of the law. But because of their political persuasion and public positions they were targeted for destruction by the progressive left.

A former top lawyer for the Democrat National Committee, Marc Elias, established a website called Democracy Docket (https://www.democracydocket.com/). Elias’s intention has been to guide Democrats through the legal system in their attacks against Trump to keep him off the ballot as well as to control other aspects of our election processes. These aspects include gerrymandering (bad when Republicans do it [North Carolina] and ignored when Democrats do it [New York, Maryland, Illinois].

Another left-of-center organization is the Lawfare Institute. The Lawfare Institute’s website (lawfaremedia.org) focuses on national security law and portrays a fascinating intersection of law and strategy.

To outspoken opponents of the Ruling Class the message becomes clear. Resist the entrenched political establishment and the same fate will befall you.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).