Election Interference
Election Interference
Lawfare is the worst way to cheat!
When you hear the words “election interference,” what images form in your mind? Pause a second and see what comes to you… I think for most people their brain conjures up thoughts of voters being denied access to the ballot box, or voters being paid or even threatened to vote for one candidate over another, or people cheating by running already-counted-ballots through the voting machines multiple times, or massive amounts of unverified mail-in ballots from disqualifying addresses (like vacant land let’s say) being counted in the final tallies. Most people don’t think of lawfare as election interference. But it most certainly is, and herein I explain why.
First let’s define, “election interference” so we know what we are talking about here. It is generally defined as efforts to change the outcome of an election. So, things that can directly affect an election process and thus its outcome, are considered “interference,” and here in the United States, such interference is absolutely illegal. This means, anyone who engages in election interference is breaking our laws and can, and should, be punished swiftly and severely. As I have opined many times before, voting is our most sacred right and duty as citizens of this great nation. It is how We The People gain and keep control of our lives, of our society, and of our insatiably power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats.
There is an entire section of our United States Code (i.e. our federal laws) that is dedicated to election interference. It’s found at 18 U.S. Code Chapter 29 - ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, and this is a snapshot of the subsections contained in the law:
[§ 591. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–187, title II, § 201(a)(1), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1367]
§ 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments
§ 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
§ 601. Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution
§ 609. Use of military authority to influence vote of member of Armed Forces
[§§ 612 to 617. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–283, title II, § 201(a), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 496]
There’s a lot in there to absorb, but I want to hone in on one subsection, §594 - Intimidation of Voters. This is what it says:
Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
I bolded the wording I want to stress to you. Read just the bolded font that I have highlighted. What it means in layman’s terms is, it’s illegal for anyone to prevent you from voting for a candidate for President. So, that can look like you being stopped by someone preventing you from getting to the polls, or your vote not being tallied, or your vote being diluted by “illegal” votes of people who are not citizens or who voted multiple times, and it can also look like you not being allowed to vote for a candidate because that candidate is being removed from the list of names on the ballot, or is being forbidden from campaigning because he is sitting in a jail cell, or cannot campaign because he is bankrupt... Those latter scenarios are expamples of lawfare, and every single one of them is being used against the Republican Presidential candidate and former President, Donald J. Trump.
Speaking about not appearing on the ballot, below is a map of all of the states that are trying to or have successfully removed President Trump from the ballot. There is shockingly an entire website dedicated to tracking their progress on using lawfare to promote their cause: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
Remember folks, as I made clear in my Substack article last week, Shotes Fired… America Burning, An Assassination Attempt on President Donald Trump, this is not about Donald Trump, and love, like or hate him, this should outrage you! This is about you, me, and everyone you care about in this country. They are after our rights, our freedoms, our very way of life. Trump isn’t wrong when he says they are after us, and he’s just standing in their way. Think about it for a minute, if they can do what they are doing to a former President, just imagine what they can do to you, or someone you love.
Next, let’s take a look at the definition of “lawfare.” The Collins Dictionary defines lawfare as: The strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent. The word is a play off of the more commonplace word, “warfare,” which according to the American Heritage Dictionary means: the waging of a war against an enemy; and armed conflict. It is also defined as: Acts undertaken to destroy or undermine the strength of another.
So, if you use law/lawsuits to try to silence or expel your political opponent, that is election interference. Clear as the nose on my face. And election interference is indeed a form of cheating. In my opinion, it is probably the worst form of cheating.
Why is lawfare the worst way to cheat? Because most people don’t even realize that it is election interference! That’s because the mainstream media (which many have denoted to be an arm of the DNC) paints the picture as “orange-man bad” and “a convicted felon” and “the criminal politician,” so it automatically makes the public view the situation as legal justice, where in reality it is interference with a Presidential election… which is a crime. Read that how I meant it, please. It’s criminals calling the candidate a criminal. Clever. But abhorrently deceiving, and wholly illegal. You may be wondering, “If this is illegal, then why isn’t anyone suing the culprits?” Enter Missouri v. New York…
Just a couple of weeks ago, one day before Independence Day, on July 3rd, the Attorney General of Missouri filed a motion with the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) requesting leave to file a Bill of Complaint. In other words, Missouri is asking SCOTUS if it can file a lawsuit against New York for interfering in the 2024 presidential election. The reason Missouri must ask the Court to file the lawsuit is twofold - one, because SCOTUS does not hear every case that comes before the Court, and two, because Missouri is invoking a rare jurisdictional position where SCOTUS will hear a case between two states as “original jurisdiction” in accordance with Article III, Section II of the US Constitution, which means the states do not have to go through the lower court system first, and instead can go straight to SCOTUS. The motion was only filed two weeks ago, so SCOTUS has not yet ruled on whether or not they will hear the case.
Taking a look at what Missouri is alleging, their lawsuit accuses the State of New York of violating Missourians’ First Amendment right to hear from a presidential candidate in the 2024 election. Specifically, the lawsuit asserts that “New York’s illicit prosecution, gag order, and sentencing of President Trump has undermined his ability to campaign for president. This overt meddling in a presidential election sabotages Missourians’ ability to hear from and cast a fully-informed vote for president mere months before the election.” (Refer back to my bolded language above of 18 USC, Chapter 29, §594 - Intimidation of Voters).
Missouri’s Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, has a summary of his lawsuit posted on their website. Here is a part of that summary:
“Right now, Missouri has a huge problem with New York. Instead of letting presidential candidates campaign on their own merits, radical progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election by waging a direct attack on our democratic process,” said Attorney General Bailey. “I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election. I am filing suit to ensure every Missourian can exercise their right to hear from and vote for their preferred presidential candidate.”
The lawsuit comes just one month after New York obtained an illicit conviction against President Trump, and alleges three specific violations:
Count I: Interference with the Presidential Election in other States
Count II: Violation of Purcell (a federal case prohibiting courts from sowing voter confusion or changing election rules in the months leading up to an election)
Count III: Violation of the First Amendment rights of voters in other States
General Bailey asserts in the lawsuit, “This lawfare is poisonous to American democracy. The American people ought to be able to participate in a presidential election free from New York’s interference. Any gag order and sentence should be stayed until after the election.”
His lawsuit lays out the timeline of how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought charges against President Trump in order to boost Joe Biden’s campaign and keep Trump out of the White House. Bragg was previously involved in civil litigation against the former President while working for the New York Attorney General’s Office and then campaigned for his current position by promising to use that experience to prosecute him. Additionally, Bragg hired the third highest ranking member from Biden’s Department of Justice, Matthew Colangelo, to lead the prosecution against Biden’s political opponent.
His lawsuit also notes how Judge Merchan violated state judicial ethics rules by donating to the Biden campaign. Further, Judge Merchan refused to recuse himself from the case despite having donated to Trump’s general-election opponent and having a close family member who stood to gain financially from a conviction. He later imposed a gag order on President Trump when he pointed these facts out to the public.
Noting this reprehensible lawfare, General Bailey states in the lawsuit, “Trump’s conviction is very likely to be overturned on appeal. But by then, the constraints New York has sought to impose on Trump to limit his ability to campaign will already have had their full effect. Missouri has a strong, judicially enforceable interest in its citizens and electors being able to hear Trump’s campaigning free from any gag order or other interference imposed by the State of New York.”
Attorney General Bailey filed a motion of preliminary injunction, asking the Supreme Court to immediately halt any further action in the New York case until after the American people have had their say at the ballot box.
The lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction can be read here.
So far, several states have come together and filed an Amicus Brief in support of Missouri’s lawsuit against New York.
Let’s see how this all plays out. SCOTUS must first agree to grant Missouri’s motion. Then the actual litigation will commence. Election day is just about three short months away, so time is of the essence. Could SCOTUS just let the clock run out and not rule on the motion, or on the underlying case, in time for the November 5th election? Yes, of course they could. They are SCOTUS. Let’s hope they have enough sense and integrity to stop the lawfare, instead of joining it.
Don’t Forget!
This is a joint effort… Keeping the public well informed on hot topics, legal issues, and more is something I love doing, but it takes time and resources to keep it going. Additionally, all of my lawsuits against New York State, I do pro bono. Please consider supporting my work:
You can donate at: www.CoxLawyers.com
To support my quarantine camp lawsuit appeal, donate at: www.UnitingNYS.com
Stay Informed: Sign up for my weekly Substack, and then share it. Consider a paid subscription if you would like to help support my work.
If you aren’t already, follow me now on Twitter… @Attorney_Cox
Thank you!
Inspirational Quote:
Paper ballots, photo ID.
Very astute analysis. I became ashamed of my chosen career during the challenges to the 2020 results, when not one single court had the nerve to hear the case before it. No way to call it except abject cowardice, and that's why we are where we are today.