United States v. Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg

Should the Indictors Be Indicted? You the jury will decide!

Peter here and I’m please to share with you a sneak peek at next week’s newspaper column AND also ask for your help!

All you “the jury” need do is answer the poll questions following this article and then I’ll incorporate the poll results into the published article.

I think you’ll find this both interesting and fun so HERE WE GO!

August 1, 2025

United States v. Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg

The Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming charges that the Defendants former Attorney General Merrick Garland, former special prosecutor Jack Smith, Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury. 

These Defendants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to interfere with the 2024 presidential election.  They attempted to impair or destroy the candidacy of Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump and thereby deprive Mr. Trump and his supporters of their rights under color of law. 

Defendants used a three-pronged attack. The first prong was a full-frontal assault to wrongly convict Mr. Trump and his associates of numerous felonies.  These convictions would preclude Mr. Trump from serving if he won the 2024 race and deny Mr. Trump the services of his associates. 

In the event a conviction could not be secured, Defendants sought to damage Mr. Trump’s reputation beyond repair with knowingly false allegations.  They believed that an onslaught of negative publicity would turn Mr. Trump from frontrunner to also-ran.

The Defendants’ third line of attack was to use their baseless indictments to distract Mr. Trump and his associates from campaigning.  Defendants also sought to divert Mr. Trump’s campaign resources, both money and staff, towards fighting his legal battles.  These battles had to be fought in different jurisdictions hundreds or thousands of miles from one another and thereby drained tens of millions of dollars from Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign coffers.

To implement their conspiracy, Defendants shared clearly identifiable common strategies and tactics which illustrate the high degree of explicit collusion or tacit coordination that conspiratorially occurred between and among them.  Their manner and means include: 

Each Defendant relied on a novel legal theory far outside the boundaries of true justice and without any basis in settled law.  For example, Defendant Willis relied on the federal RICO (Racketeering) Act rather than violations of state election laws while Defendant Bragg attempted to twist a misdemeanor of allegedly falsifying business records into a felonious federal campaign violation.

Each indictment was timed to the 2024 election cycle to maximize its possible negative impacts on voter perceptions of Mr. Trump.  By rolling their indictments, arraignments, and proposed trial dates through the election cycle, Defendants also sought to substantially curb Mr. Trump’s ability to move freely about the country to campaign. 

Each Defendant sought to adjudicate their case in Trump-unfriendly jurisdictions with high Democrat registration.  Defendants believed this would lead to a higher probability that members of a Grand Jury and jury would first indict and then convict Mr. Trump and do so in rapid fashion, e.g., Defendant Bragg’s Manhattan, Defendant Smith’s Washington, DC, or the “rocket docket” in Miami known for its speedy trials.

Each Defendant excessively charged Mr. Trump with multiple counts that collectively added up to over 700 years of prison time.  The underlying tactic, well-known in prosecutorial circles, was to throw everything at the wall and hope that something would stick.

Each Defendant falsely charged numerous Trump associates to pressure these prosecutorial victims to turn “state’s evidence.”   This pressure included both the threat of prison time and the drain on family resources from paying significant legal bills.

Finally, each Defendant built his or her case around the rebuttal presumption that the 2020 presidential election was unmarred by fraud and irregularities.  No reasonable person reviewing the forensic evidence in key battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – or who simply watched the films 2000 Mules or Rigged -- can assert with any certainty Mr. Trump did not have good reasons to believe the election was stolen from him.

The Defendants’ criminal enterprise enlisted numerous unindicted co-conspirators in the print and TV media.  These co-conspirators publicized leaks from the investigations and readily adopted the false narratives and malicious talking points disseminated to them directly by the bureaucracies controlled by the Defendants.  These unindicted co-conspirators from the media thereby further the goals of the conspiracy to interfere with the 2024 election.

While the Defendant’s conspiracy ultimately backfired by consolidating support for Mr. Trump and thereby paved the way for his return to the White House in 2025, the Defendants did incalcuable damage to the integrity of the American judicial and election systems. 

Defendants also harmed the health, well-being, and financial security of many of Mr. Trump’s associates these Defendants tried to use as pawns in their election interference game.

Most harmful to the national security of this nation, Defendants diverted the American electorate’s attention away from critical economic and national security issues, including the economic challenge of stagflation and the clear and present dangers that rogue nations such as Communist China, North Korea, and Iran pose to this nation.

Should these Defendants bear any burden for their actions?  This obviously fictional look at the future through the lens of how at least one man sees the chessboard offers you the jury reading this article to make your choice.  You can cast your vote at www.peternavarro.substack.com. 

SO HERE’S THE POLL QUESTIONS! PLEASE ANSWER THEM IF YOU CAN AND ALSO LEAVE A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE.

THANKS! for answering. If you can, please share this post with a friend or colleague.