1. Summary
The balance of power among the three branches of government is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution. However, activist judges have increasingly encroached upon executive authority, undermining the separation of powers. When judges exceed their constitutional authority by obstructing or overturning executive actions without legitimate constitutional grounds, they not only overstep their role but may also commit acts tantamount to treason and sedition. This essay explores the legal basis for holding such judges accountable, citing relevant laws, cases, and precedents.
2. The Constitutional Framework
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the President, granting him authority over the administration of federal agencies and the enforcement of laws. Conversely, Article III establishes the judicial branch, limiting its role to interpreting the law rather than legislating or executing it. The principle of separation of powers is intended to prevent any branch from usurping the functions of another.
James Madison, in The Federalist Papers No. 47, emphasized that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” When judges attempt to override executive decisions outside their jurisdiction, they disrupt this balance and engage in judicial tyranny.
3. Activist Judges and the Undermining of Executive Authority
The term “activist judge” refers to those who decide cases based on personal political or ideological beliefs rather than strict adherence to constitutional principles. Such judges have, in recent history, issued rulings that directly contravene executive orders, often without sound legal justification. For example:
I. Trump v. Hawaii (2018): The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the executive order restricting travel from certain nations, emphasizing the President’s broad discretion in national security matters. However, lower courts had previously attempted to strike down the order based on partisan interpretations, exceeding their constitutional mandate.
II. Texas v. United States (2015): A federal judge blocked the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, highlighting the principle that executive actions must align with constitutional authority. Yet, numerous judicial interventions against executive policies have been politically motivated rather than legally sound.
When judges deliberately obstruct the execution of lawful presidential authority without valid constitutional grounds, they effectively engage in a form of insubordination against the executive branch.
4. Legal Grounds for Sedition and Treason
The U.S. legal system provides mechanisms to address such overreach, particularly under statutes concerning sedition and treason.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy: This law states that “if two or more persons in any State or Territory… conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States… or oppose by force the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned.” If activist judges intentionally obstruct executive functions and conspire to weaken presidential authority, they could be seen as engaging in seditious activities.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 2381 – Treason: This statute defines treason as “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.” If a judge collaborates with foreign or domestic entities to undermine national security-related executive decisions, they could be guilty of treason.
5. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: This clause strictly defines treason but also implies that actions severely undermining the federal government’s operations could qualify if they involve aiding enemies or direct rebellion. Whice in at least several cased thy clealry do.
6. Precedents and Remedies
While judicial overreach is not new, historical responses to it vary. Some remedies include:
- Impeachment: Federal judges serve for life “during good behavior” under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. However, Congress has the power to impeach judges who abuse their authority. Samuel Chase, a Supreme Court justice, was impeached in 1804 for allegedly allowing political bias to influence his rulings, demonstrating that judicial overreach can be addressed constitutionally.
- Legislation to Rein in the Courts: Congress has authority under Article III to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts. Legislation limiting judicial interference in executive matters could serve as a corrective measure against activist rulings.
- Criminal Prosecution: In extreme cases where judicial actions constitute a clear conspiracy against the government, seditious conspiracy or even treason charges could be considered. However, such actions must meet high evidentiary standards.
7. The Judicial Coup Against Trump: How Activist Judges Are Undermining the Constitution and Aiding the Deep State
From the moment Donald Trump was sworn into office, a network of activist judges has worked tirelessly to obstruct his policies, undermine his authority, and interfere in the democratic process. These judges, overwhelmingly appointed by Democratic presidents, have systematically weaponized the courts against a sitting president in what can only be described as an unconstitutional coup. Their rulings go beyond legal interpretation and directly violate the Constitution’s principles of separation of powers, executive authority, and the rule of law.
8. How These Judges Are Violating the Constitution
I. Undermining the Executive Branch’s Authority
-
- The U.S. Constitution grants the President broad powers over national security, foreign policy, and immigration under Article II. Yet, activist judges like Jon S. Tigar (Northern District of California) and Theodore D. Chuang (District of Maryland) have repeatedly blocked Trump’s lawful immigration policies, preventing him from securing America’s borders.
- b. Tigar issued nationwide injunctions against asylum restrictions, while Chuang ruled against Trump’s travel ban despite the Supreme Court ultimately upholding it.
II. Legislating from the Bench
-
- The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not create new policies. Yet, judges like Beryl Howell (D.C. District Court) and James E. Boasberg have handed down politically motivated rulings designed to push a leftist agenda.
- Howell, for example, declared unconstitutional an executive order targeting the Paul, Weiss law firm, effectively protecting legal elites tied to anti-Trump operations.
III. Blocking Trump’s Attempts to Drain the Swamp
-
- When Trump attempted to fire corrupt government employees entrenched in the bureaucracy, activist judges like William Alsup (Northern District of California) and James Bredar (District of Maryland) stepped in to block the mass layoffs.
- Their rulings forced the federal government to reinstate employees whose terminations were part of Trump’s efforts to cut waste and remove deep state operatives.
IV. Shielding the Deep State from Accountability
a. Judge Carl J. Nichols (D.C. District Court) blocked Trump’s attempt to place USAID employees on administrative leave and recall foreign-based workers.b. This move directly protected bureaucrats who had been pushing anti-Trump foreign policy behind the scenes.
V. Interfering in Elections and Political Processes
-
- Judges have weaponized the legal system to prevent Trump from governing and running for re-election.
- Judge Arthur Engoron (New York) has led a politically driven civil fraud case against Trump’s businesses, clearly designed to cripple his financial and political power.
- Judge Juan Merchan (New York) is overseeing Trump’s so-called “hush money” trial, which was widely seen as a bogus attempt to keep him off the campaign trail.
| Judge | Court | Anti-Trump Rulings |
| Jon S. Tigar | Northern District of California | Blocked asylum restrictions |
| Theodore Chuang | District of Maryland | Blocked Trump’s travel ban |
| Beryl Howell | D.C. District Court | Protected anti-Trump law firms |
| James E. Boasberg | D.C. District Court | Halted deportation of gang members |
| William Alsup | Northern District of California | Reinstated fired federal employees |
| James Bredar | District of Maryland | Overturned Trump’s federal workforce cuts |
| Carl J. Nichols | D.C. District Court | Protected USAID deep state operatives |
| Arthur Engoron | New York State Court | Led politically motivated civil fraud case |
| Juan Merchan | New York State Court | Oversees hush money trial against Trump |
Table 1: Sampling of Activist Judges and Their Anti-Trump Actions
9. Case in Point: Judicial Bias and Conflict of Interest – The Case Against Judge Juan Merchan
Serious concerns have emerged regarding Judge Juan Merchan’s impartiality in presiding over cases involving former President Donald Trump, focusing on three critical issues: the propriety of his case assignments, his political contributions, and his familial connections.
- Improper Case Assignment
Allegations have surfaced suggesting that Judge Merchan’s assignment to multiple high-profile Trump-related cases was not the result of a standard random selection process but rather intentional manipulation. Typically, cases are distributed among a panel of judges to ensure impartiality and fairness. However, the repeated assignment of Judge Merchan to cases involving President Trump and his associates raises significant doubts about the integrity of this process.In May 2024, Representative Elise Stefanik filed a formal complaint alleging potential misconduct in the assignment of Judge Merchan to these cases. She pointed out that the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Courts require criminal actions to be assigned to judges “pursuant to a method of random selection authorized by the Chief Administrator.” Stefanik argued that the likelihood of the same judge being randomly assigned to multiple cases involving the same individual is extremely low, suggesting that Judge Merchan’s assignments were not random.Furthermore, Stefanik highlighted that Judge Merchan is a known donor to Democratic Party causes, raising additional concerns about his impartiality. She stated, “One cannot help but suspect that the ‘random selection’ at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all.“ - Political Donations
Reports have revealed that Judge Merchan made political contributions to Democratic causes. Specifically, during the 2020 election cycle, he donated to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, to the voter mobilization group “Progressive Turnout Project,” and to the digital ad campaign “Stop Republicans.” While these amounts were not large, they raise questions about his ability to remain impartial in cases involving prominent Republican figures, including President Trump.
- Family Ties to Partisan Interests
Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, serves as the president and a minority partner at Authentic Campaigns, a political consulting firm deeply entrenched in Democratic politics. Notably, during the 2024 election cycle, Authentic Campaigns received substantial payments from prominent Democratic figures:
-
-
Rep. Adam Schiff: Schiff’s campaign paid Authentic Campaigns nearly $5 million in the 2024 election cycle.
-
Senate Majority PAC: This political action committee, associated with Democratic Senate leadership, has also been a significant client of Authentic Campaigns.
-
These financial relationships raise serious ethical concerns, especially considering that these clients have actively fundraised off the outcomes of cases presided over by Judge Merchan. For instance, following Trump’s conviction, Schiff’s campaign sent fundraising emails capitalizing on the verdict. Investigative journalist Laura Loomer has been at the forefront of exposing these conflicts of interest, highlighting the intricate web of financial and partisan connections that compromise Judge Merchan’s impartiality. Her reporting underscores the urgent need for a thorough investigation into these ethical breaches.
10. Conclusion: The Deep State’s Judicial Coup Must Be Stopped
The sheer volume and consistency of rulings against President Trump prove that these are not just fair-minded judges following the law—they are political operatives working in concert to sabotage Trump’s presidency. This is an organized judicial coup against the will of the American people. Activist judges who unlawfully challenge presidential authority undermine the constitutional order and threaten national governance. When their decisions exceed judicial authority and intentionally obstruct the executive branch, they risk violating laws against sedition and treason. The constitutional remedies—impeachment, jurisdictional restrictions, and, in extreme cases, legal prosecution—must be seriously considered to uphold the integrity of the U.S. government and preserve the separation of powers.
These actions by judicial activist judges cannot be allowed to stand. This must be addressed now, or the will of the people – who voted for President Trump AND his agenda – will be illegally thwarted by this conspiracy to deny our desire to see this corruption ended.
Amen to that!
We need to find a way to reign in activist judges attempting to control the executive branch. Can’t congress do something about this?
The process is simple—the GOP just needs the will. Congress has the tools to check judicial overreach, whether through legislation, jurisdiction stripping, or even impeachment of activist judges. The real question is whether Republican lawmakers are willing to act decisively. If they won’t, this issue should become the de facto reason for primaring GOP legislators who refuse to stand up and fight.
Well said. Republicans need to fight back.
The left can not fund itself. So it established a large network of so called NGOs. Then it redirecting tax money to these NGOs to fund various leftist agenda items. One thing that can be done to help resolve some of these judicial attacks is for congress to pass rescission bills to return previous congressionally allocated monies back to the treasury. Some of these judges are working from the view that the leftist NGOs must be funded because of previous congressional funding. Once the monies are returned to the treasury by congress they have no say at all in the disposition of those monies. Rescission bills can not be filibustered in the Senate. It takes a simple majority in the House and Senate to pass them. If the House and Senate repubs can control the RINOs these rescission bills can be passed. Trump would certainly sign them.
I agree. I would also add these points:
The Left’s NGO Laundering Scheme: How to Cut the Financial Lifeline
The left has perfected a self-funding cycle by redirecting taxpayer dollars into an intricate web of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that push progressive policies while shielding themselves from accountability. These NGOs function as money laundering operations, where government funds are funneled through grants and contracts to sustain the left’s political infrastructure. The judiciary—stacked with left-leaning judges—protects this arrangement by treating previous congressional funding as a mandate rather than a discretionary allocation.
The Plan to Cut the Financial Lifeline
Tactical Actions (Immediate Moves to Disrupt Funding)
Pass Rescission Bills to Revoke Prior Funding
Rescission bills cannot be filibustered and require only a simple majority in both chambers. By passing rescission measures, Congress can claw back previously allocated funds and return them to the U.S. Treasury, stripping NGOs of their financial lifeline. This would also send a clear message to the judiciary: there is no statutory obligation to keep these NGOs afloat.
Invoke the RICO Act to Prosecute NGO Collusion
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was designed to combat criminal enterprises—including organized corruption in political funding networks. Many NGOs operate as a coordinated network with government officials to perpetuate the cycle of funding. By prosecuting NGO executives and government officials under RICO statutes, the entire funding web can be dismantled through criminal conspiracy charges. Law enforcement agencies and congressional committees must subpoena financial records of NGOs suspected of illegally coordinating to redirect taxpayer funds into partisan causes.
Enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Against Foreign-Funded NGOs
Many leftist NGOs receive foreign funding but fail to register under FARA, which requires organizations working on behalf of foreign entities to disclose financial ties and activities. Any NGO found to be influencing U.S. policy while receiving foreign money should be subject to FARA prosecution— including asset seizures, fines, and criminal charges. The DOJ must aggressively prosecute non-compliant NGOs and ban foreign-funded organizations from receiving taxpayer dollars.
Audit Every Federal Grant and Contract Given to Leftist NGOs
The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees must launch full forensic audits into all federal contracts and grants issued to NGOs. This includes a line-by-line review of federal spending to determine whether NGOs are improperly diverting taxpayer dollars into election influence operations, policy lobbying, or partisan legal warfare. Any misuse of funds should be met with immediate defunding, lawsuits, and criminal referrals.
Defund DOJ and IRS Units Protecting Leftist NGOs
The Biden administration has weaponized the DOJ and IRS to shield leftist NGOs while targeting conservative organizations. Republican majorities in Congress must strip funding from DOJ divisions that refuse to enforce RICO and FARA against leftist entities. The IRS Exempt Organizations division should face aggressive oversight to prevent selective enforcement against conservative groups while granting leftist NGOs tax-exempt status without scrutiny.
Rewrite Federal Grant Laws to Prohibit Political NGO Funding
New legislation must explicitly ban taxpayer funding from being allocated to NGOs involved in partisan activities, election influence, or lobbying. Every grant program must include strict oversight mechanisms, requiring all funding recipients to disclose donor sources, expenditure records, and policy advocacy affiliations. Any NGO found to be using federal money for political purposes should be permanently disqualified from receiving future grants.
Impose Severe Criminal Penalties for Government Officials Aiding NGO Laundering
Bureaucrats who collude with NGOs to direct taxpayer dollars into partisan activities should face criminal charges, loss of pension benefits, and lifetime bans from government service. Legislative oversight must include whistleblower protections and financial rewards for government employees who expose NGO corruption schemes.
Restrict Judicial Interference in Budgetary Matters
Leftist judges have increasingly ruled as if prior congressional funding mandates continued financial support for NGOs. Congress must pass laws explicitly stating that previous appropriations do not create a legal obligation for continued funding. A constitutional challenge should be mounted against judicial overreach into congressional spending powers.
Break Up and Decentralize Federal Grant-Making Authorities
Many grants that fuel leftist NGOs come from centralized federal agencies controlled by deep-state bureaucrats. Congress should transfer grant authority to state legislatures, allowing red states to cut off leftist NGO funding entirely. Any attempt by the federal government to override state funding decisions should be met with legal challenges and financial penalties.
End Automatic Funding Renewals for NGOs
Leftist NGOs rely on automatic renewal mechanisms to keep taxpayer money flowing indefinitely. Congress must require every NGO grant to be subject to annual review and congressional reauthorization. No automatic renewals. No rolling contracts. No unchecked funding pipelines.
The Path to Victory
The left’s NGO complex is one of the biggest financial scams in American politics. It takes taxpayer money, launders it through supposedly “independent” organizations, and then uses that money to wage lawfare, influence elections, and manipulate public policy. A coordinated effort using rescission bills, RICO charges, FARA enforcement, forensic audits, and strict grant restrictions can dismantle this system at its core.
With Republican control of Congress and the White House, this strategy is entirely achievable. The key is ruthless execution—no half-measures, no compromises. The left built this machine over decades; it’s time to tear it down piece by piece.
The Great NGO Machine – (A Politico-Financial Fairy Tale in Rhyme)
Once upon a swampy time,
In D.C.’s land of muck and slime,
A clever Leftist plan took flight—
To fund their dreams from public might.
They built a web, both vast and thick,
Of NGOs that did the trick.
“Independent?” Not quite so—
They drank straight from the tax-paid flow.
With grants and cash from Uncle Sam,
They bought a Prius and a glam
Downtown loft, with law degrees,
To sue and lobby as they please.
“But wait!” cried Right, “This isn’t fair!
They fund their causes from thin air!”
“Nay, from your wallet,” came the tease,
“Thanks to our friendly judges’ decrees.”
The Master-Plan!
Step one! Let’s pull the magic lever—
A rescission bill (filibuster? Never!).
Claw the cash, revoke the blunder,
Drain their gold like Thor’s own thunder.
Step two! Ah yes, a classic caper—
Hit ‘em with that RICO paper.
“Collusion!” cry, “Conspiracy!”
Let’s prosecute this NGO spree.
Step three—cue drama, music, FARA!
Foreign funds? Oh, sayonara.
If Soros sends you euro stacks,
You’d better register those tax.
Step four: Audit every grant—
From gender goats to Marxist chant.
Trace each dime from A to Z,
Or cut them off like cable TV.
But Wait, There’s More!
Defund the DOJ squads that hide
These grants like socks beneath the tide.
And IRS—oh yes, you too!
Stop shielding “Leftist 501(c)(2).”
Next, rewrite every grant creation,
Ban partisan participation!
If your org chants “Orange Man Bad,”
No taxpayer cash for your launchpad.
Punish feds who play this game,
Strip their pensions, name their name!
Whistleblowers? Give them loot—
We love a snitch in business suit.
The judges too must take a hit,
They think old budgets always fit.
Clarify: No money flows
Unless Congress again bestows.
Final Boss Move:
Disband the Fed Grant Mafia whole,
Let states take back their funding role.
If Texas says, “We’re cutting ties,”
Then no more grants for rainbow pies.
No renewals! No free ride!
Each year they beg, each year denied.
No “Set it and forget it” stream,
This ain’t Ronco—this is the dream!
The Moral (kinda):
So here’s the tale, in jest and rhyme,
Of Lefty schemes and Righty grime.
It’s politics, a circus dance—
But now we’ve got a fighting chance.
So raise your pen, your voice, your mug—
And toast the war on tax-paid smug.
For every woke and whispered scream—
There’s laughter in The Laundering Scheme!
This is the BEST reading I’ve had in a long time.
Thank you for the kind words.
….It appears to me that this article and attached commentary are narrowly focused on criticizing judges’ proper actions re inhibiting presidential dictums and executive orders most non-judicial persons would deem arbitrary and capricious.
….re seditious and treasonous activity, my read is that these terms apply eminently to Trump’s activities before and after becoming the president. his and Musk’s actions are clearly intended to obviate, ignore and destroy constitutional rights; reading your text describing the obvious manifestations of tyranny and treason, accurately defining them, one cannot fail to see how they describe perfectly the results of the administration’s continuing efforts to intentionally create an autocratic government.
…presuming the validity of your definitions, any other interpretation of Trump’s & Musk’s non-mandated proclamations, Twitter et al posts, and deleterious destructive maneuvers decimating many governmental agencies necessary to -efficient- adminstration of highly successful programs affecting not only the domestic population but that of many counties and Their citizens cannot be rationalized, vetted, concluded or accepted.
..I suggest you review your pronouncements with an eye towards their application to the current administration rather than to judges appointed by bipartisan affirmation who adhere to their sworn oaths to the Constitution, as opposed to those elected and appointed dedicated to its eradication.
1. Judges “inhibiting presidential dictums” as a mark of virtue?
“…criticizing judges’ proper actions re inhibiting presidential dictums and executive orders…”
This line presumes—without argument—that all judicial actions against executive orders are “proper.” That’s judicial supremacy masquerading as constitutional guardianship. The judiciary is not a roving veto squad empowered to strike down executive actions simply because they offend elite sentiment. If anything, many recent judicial overreaches have bypassed constitutional standing and created policy from the bench, replacing the will of elected branches with the whims of ideologically homogenous chambers.
When judges issue nationwide injunctions over border control, energy policy, or speech regulations, they’re not checking tyranny—they’re displacing democratic governance. So no, it’s not “proper” when unelected judges nullify executive authority simply because it conflicts with their coastal cocktail party values.
2. President Trump and Musk = Treason? A laughable distortion
“seditious and treasonous activity… eminently apply to Trump’s activities…”
Throwing around terms like treason and sedition because you dislike someone’s politics is juvenile and legally illiterate. Treason is defined narrowly in the Constitution as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies—not tweeting, not criticizing agencies, and not shaking up a bloated administrative state.
If anything, accusing President Trump or Musk of treason while cheering actual censorship of political speech by federal agencies (see: FBI and social media collusion) shows a Kafkaesque inversion of justice. Musk has exposed authoritarian coordination between tech and government. That’s not treason—that’s transparency.
3. “Destroying constitutional rights”… by restoring them?
“…actions clearly intended to obviate, ignore and destroy constitutional rights…”
Which rights? Be specific. Because if you’re talking about freedom of speech, privacy, or due process, the Trump-Musk axis is arguably doing more to restore them than any administration in recent history. Musk buying Twitter (now X) unmasked an unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex that your side celebrated.
President Trump’s opposition to lockdowns, censorship boards, and vaccine mandates wasn’t about dismantling rights—it was about preserving them from overreach. If restoring agency to citizens is “destroying constitutional rights,” then you’ve redefined tyranny as freedom.
4. “Non-mandated proclamations”? Like every First Amendment right?
“…Trump’s & Musk’s non-mandated proclamations… cannot be rationalized…”
That sentence reads like someone allergic to dissent. What exactly is a “non-mandated proclamation”? If you mean expressing political views without asking your permission, that’s literally the definition of free speech. There is no “mandate” needed to speak, post, question authority, or call out governmental decay.
Musk’s disclosures (e.g. Twitter Files) aren’t “deleterious”—they’re a civic service. And if dismantling redundant, bloated agencies that waste taxpayer money and trample liberties bothers you, maybe you’re nostalgic for bureaucratic tyranny. Efficient administration isn’t the goal of government. Constitutional fidelity is.
5. Judges “adhering to their oath”?
“…judges appointed by bipartisan affirmation who adhere to their sworn oaths…”
Not when they legislate from the bench, shield corrupt agencies from oversight, or ignore blatant constitutional violations (see: FBI abuses, FISA court scandals, and selective prosecution). A robe doesn’t sanctify political behavior. And bipartisan confirmation doesn’t mean bipartisan integrity—just ask Justice Roberts, who rewrote the ACA to save face.
Your worship of the judiciary only applies when it rules in your ideological favor. That’s not constitutionalism—that’s convenience disguised as principle. Your entire argument amounts to projection: accusing others of sedition while defending administrative overreach; invoking “constitutional rights” while opposing those who expose censorship; and labeling dissent “treason” while ignoring the real erosion of liberties.
In short, you’ve inverted reality. The ones undermining constitutional norms are not President Trump and Musk—it’s the sprawling, unaccountable machinery you’ve mistaken for democracy.
This is absolutely nuts.
Anyone who disagrees with the King is a “traitor”?
Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
Your reaction completely misses the point.
No one is calling ordinary dissent “treason.” The issue here is the subversion of constitutional order by unelected judicial actors and federal agencies, weaponized against political opponents while cloaked in the language of justice and democracy. We’re not talking about disagreement—we’re talking about sedition masquerading as legality, with devastating consequences for the rule of law.
Let’s take a closer look at the pattern:
1. Judicial Overreach as Political Warfare
When judges become activists in robes, advancing ideological agendas instead of interpreting the law, they cease to be neutral arbiters. They become political operatives with lifetime appointments—effectively immune from accountability. That’s not justice. That’s oligarchy.
2. The Collusion Delusion and the Mueller Illusion
See the 2019 post titled: “Robert Mueller’s Deflective Force Field”, it lays bare how Mueller—far from being a neutral investigator—served as a treasonous figurehead, giving legitimacy to a false narrative of “Russian collusion” that never existed. His report was riddled with omissions, deflections, and partisan bias. It wasn’t an investigation; it was a cover-up operation designed to protect the architects of the lie—many of whom were embedded in DOJ, FBI, and the intelligence community.
3. Weaponization of Federal Agencies
From abusive FISA warrants obtained with falsified evidence (see: Carter Page), to FBI raids and IRS targeting, we’re witnessing a pattern of federal law enforcement used not to uphold justice, but to silence opposition. These aren’t isolated incidents—they represent a systemic rot.
4. The Real Collusion: Courts, Media, and Bureaucracy
What’s worse than foreign interference? Domestic collusion between corrupted judges, partisan prosecutors, and intelligence agencies, all operating with media cover. The Russian collusion hoax was propped up by bad-faith actors, facilitated by judicial rubber stamps, and used to undermine a sitting president—a soft coup cloaked in legal procedure.
5. Criminal Prosecution as Political Punishment
The trend of using selective prosecution—whether against whistleblowers, political opponents, or private citizens with the “wrong” views—is deeply un-American. It’s not about enforcing the law; it’s about enforcing compliance. And it sets a dangerous precedent: that power, not truth, determines guilt.
So no, it’s not about “disagreeing with the King.” It’s about holding accountable those who abuse the highest instruments of justice to enact ideological vengeance. If that’s not treasonous, what is?
…Yaacov…..nup,nup, and Nup.
…. I find it absolutely amazing that anybody could take a look at trump and musk and their actions to subvert the constitution…nay, ignore the constitution and proclaim themselves Judge, jury, and executioner…
… I think I can I think I can understand how you think and what your rationale I think I can understand how you think and what your rationale is, but
I think I can understand how you think and what your rationale is, but, sir, You’re a maga. You have declined to Utilize your gray matter From an open perspective and from the perspective that says, Gee!, We’re not better off than we were last year at this time. Oops.
…
The thing I find interesting is that each and every 1 one of your arguments Applies to trump and company. In fact, To me the whole thing looks like a Not too secret conspiracy To destroy Democracy, the country, and its population. If you truly do not understand what projects 2025 is about, take a look at all the cases that trump has lost. They weren’t lost because the justice department was overreaching its constitutional duties, they were adhering to their constitutional Oath. Something that trump and company Also are ignoring. They have absolutely no sort of conscience whatsoever. That you can rationalize their behavior In any sense totally mystifies me. And joe, above, and many others as well.
(Please to pardon my voice-to-text software, it capitaozes words at will)
…. In a nutshell… You have it entirely bass ackwards. Not only are all the actions trump and company have performed, including those of mister musk, Illegal….. As far as I’m concerned -They- are guilty of treason, and worse.
.. 2 more things:1 of them I have to Text for concerning Proper demeanor, approximately. The other I can lift directly from Your missive…
quote
5. Criminal Prosecution as Political Punishment
The trend of using selective prosecution—whether against whistleblowers, political opponents, or private citizens with the “wrong” views—is deeply un-American. It’s not about enforcing the law; it’s about enforcing compliance. And it sets a dangerous precedent: that power, not truth, determines guilt.
unquote
… I agree with that statement entirely and completely. The issue is that Selective prosecution is precisely what trump is performing. … Did I miss something entirely here or are you claiming that trump and company are immaculate and in the right? (pun intended). I don’t think anybody would agree with you.
… A quote comes to mind, which I can bastardize, vaguely:
Sir. I feel that you believe intensely and irrevocably In your conclusions, and that they are based on your perspective. The only problem I have, Sir, Is that your perspective Is entirely without merit.
… I would prefer to use the vernacular but I’m attempting to be more PC than usual….
.. Sorry if this sounds fragmentary but it’s late, I’m tired and I’m just reacting to portions of what you wrote. But again, I am astonished that You don’t realize those precise arguments, assessments and Conclusions apply entirely, directly, And conclusively To the current administration.
More to come, possibly.
Thank you for your reply.
You confuse losing elections with losing the country, disagreement with sedition, and political opponents with enemies to be crushed. That isn’t patriotism — it’s fanaticism dressed up in slogans you barely understand. Your entire worldview is projection: everything you accuse others of doing, your own side is performing with bureaucratic precision. You don’t oppose tyranny — you just want it run by people who agree with you.
Your comment perfectly showcases the dialectical games that have crippled American political discourse: invert reality, accuse your opponents of your own crimes, demand obedience to corruption, and call it “defending democracy.”
You claim to oppose tyranny. Yet you rationalize — or willfully ignore — the deliberate sabotage of the Republic by the very forces you defend.
This is not about Trump, Musk, or personalities. This is about a criminal system hijacking America’s institutions — a system that now operates as a full-scale organized crime cartel.
Over 60 current and former intelligence officials — including former heads of the CIA, NSA, and DNI — knowingly signed a false letter claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was “Russian disinformation.” They didn’t act out of ignorance. They acted with full knowledge, deliberately interfering in a presidential election to protect their candidate and their power.
It was a coordinated operation, not against foreign enemies, but against We the People — a lie signed, sealed, and delivered on behalf of Blinken, Biden, and their grifting handlers. Democracy wasn’t defended. It was sabotaged. And you cheered it on — like a useful idiot, or worse, a malevolent snake.
USAID and other “development” fronts funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into NGOs acting as political operatives, laundering influence at home and abroad. The DOJ and FBI buried real criminal evidence against the Biden family and the entire corrupt democrat apparatus while launching fabricated investigations into political opponents. They ran illegal surveillance operations (Crossfire Hurricane), manipulated election cycles, and protected regime allies.
The Department of Homeland Security and CISA colluded with Big Tech companies to censor constitutionally protected political speech between 2020 and 2024, creating de facto censorship boards to silence opposition under the excuse of “safety.”
The Department of Defense, once charged with defending against foreign enemies, redirected its psychological operations — including projects like Q-Anon and Defeat Disinfo — against the American people, manipulating narratives about elections, COVID-19, and “extremism.”
Lawfare operatives at Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Covington & Burling, WilmerHale, and others acted as political mercenaries — laundering fabricated opposition research into the DOJ and FBI to manufacture hoaxes like Russia Collusion, while systematically subverting the courts through selective prosecution, rigged investigations, and coordinated media disinformation. But none of this could have succeeded without a judiciary riddled with rot. Dozens of judges — blackmailed, bought off, or ideologically captured — traded their oaths for influence and personal gain, rubber-stamping political persecution while pretending to preside over justice. They weren’t impartial arbiters; they were active co-conspirators in a slow-motion coup against the rule of law.
Judicial homicide on this scale doesn’t happen by accident. It happens when the courts themselves become a tool of the regime — when black robes conceal not wisdom, but cowardice, corruption, and complicity.
If these actors were private citizens, they would be prosecuted under RICO statutes. The only difference is that these criminals operate under the protection of government titles and agencies while pretending their extortion is the defense of democracy. This is not random corruption. This is industrialized, vertically integrated organized crime. And you — knowingly or not — are defending it.
You accuse Trump of acting illegally while ignoring the simple truth that the system you defend now operates entirely outside constitutional boundaries. Your “defense of democracy” amounts to nothing more than blind loyalty to a cartel that systematically censors, prosecutes, and surveils its political enemies.
You say you oppose selective prosecution, yet you cheer when it is used to eliminate political opposition. You say you oppose disinformation, yet you applaud when federal agencies knowingly spread it to interfere in elections. You say you oppose tyranny, yet you rationalize censorship, rigged trials, and election manipulation because it happens to target people you dislike.
This is not a principled position. It is a tactic of dialectical warfare — accusing your enemies of precisely what you yourself are doing, in order to justify further corruption.
You speak of treason. So let’s be clear.
– Treason is not insulting Joe Biden or his handlers.
– Treason is turning federal law enforcement and intel into a political weapon.
– Treason is fabricating intelligence to interfere in elections.
– Treason is colluding with tech monopolies to silence lawful political speech.
– Treason is laundering foreign bribes through your Vice President’s family while suppressing the evidence through intelligence agencies.
If you were remotely serious about defending democracy, you would be calling for mass prosecutions — not of those resisting the system, but of the system itself.
The reality is simple: the cartel government you defend will eventually turn on you. It does not value loyalty. It does not respect ideology. It respects only raw, unchallenged power. And when you are no longer useful, you will be discarded just like everyone else who thought they were part of the “protected class.”
You accuse me of bad faith. I am simply refusing to bow to a system that spies on its citizens, uses the corrupt media for influence operations, censors dissent, rigs its elections, fabricates evidence, launders money through sham “nonprofits,” and calls it all “defending democracy.”
You claim to be fighting for justice. In reality, you are fighting to preserve the privileges of a criminal ruling class drunk on its own impunity. You are not standing with the Republic. You are a foot soldier for its betrayal.
I am not an anarchist. I am not a romantic revolutionary.
I believe in law, in order, and in the sacred duty of just governance.
But when the halls of power are infested with grifting, degenerate parasites, there is only one act of true justice:
To purge it utterly.
And when that cleansing begins, I pray it is merciless. I pray that President Trump — or any righteous leader brave enough — unleashes hellfire upon this pit of vipers and den of thieves, torches every rotten beam of their corrupt architecture, and pisses with contempt upon the smoldering ashes. Only from scorched earth can something honest, lawful, and sanctified rise — free at last from the stench of systemic corruption.
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
— Isaiah 5:20
https://youtu.be/Yl2Bk9UFT80?si=HVeZvghmYsv8Uitr
To Terrence B:
That is one of the most stunning examples of projection I’ve ever seen—and I’ve seen a lot. If you want to continue to expose your derangement, by all means do.