Possible Lawfare against Trump

By Andy May

From my perspective, the Democratic Party, the FBI, the Intelligence community, and the so-called deep state launched unprecedented legal attacks against Trump, his friends, supporters, and family after he won election in 2016. The attacks were supported by multiple news media organizations, although no evidence of news media/deep state coordination has been found. As I show in this post, all the attacks were arguably illegitimate, and this was so blatant and obvious that it damaged the reputations of the government and news media organizations that participated in them and arguably increased the public’s support of Donald Trump, helping him win in the 2024 elections.

There were so many legal attacks and by so many organizations that they are hard to remember and keep straight. This post is an attempt to lay them all out in an organized fashion and present the conclusion of each attack or its status if still ongoing. The attacks are quite flimsy and very 3^rd world in their nature.

Table 1 is a brief list of the key lawfare attempts against Trump from 2016 to 2026. Here “lawfare” (or the fusion of law + warfare) is defined as using legal processes for political ends, in particular when targeting one individual for actions that are ignored for everyone else. I will show that all the actions against Trump are flimsy cases and highly partisan. Trump’s opponents won the New York criminal case that accused Trump of falsifying records related to paying Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an affair they may or may not have had. But oddly he was convicted without a crime being identified or proven in court, the legal theory used by the court to convict him was unclear and flimsy.

The public was clearly not concerned about this May 30, 2024, conviction since Trump was re-elected President a few months later. The trial and conviction were seen as purely political and unimportant, and the result diminished public confidence in the U.S. justice system.

Period	Main matter	Forum	Core allegation	Outcome
2016–2019	Russia/Steele/Mueller	FBI/DOJ, Special Counsel	Coordination with Russian election interference, obstruction	Acquittal
2019–2020	Ukraine phone call	U.S. House/Senate	Abuse of power, obstruction of Congress	Acquittal
2020–present	New York civil & criminal cases	NY AG, Manhattan DA	Business, fraud and hush‑money records	Convicted
2021–present	Federal Jan. 6 & documents	Special Counsel Jack Smith	Election obstruction, classified documents retention	Stalled
2023–present	Georgia election case	Fulton County DA	Election interference in Georgia	Dismissed
2019–present	Banking/ “de‑banking”	Private banks/ regulators	Risk, compliance, reputational issues	Resolved

Table 1. List of major attempts to convict Donald Trump of something.

Beyond the Stormy Daniels hush money case, none of the other trials or attempts to bankrupt Trump succeeded and subsequent polling shows public confidence in the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Court system were affected by the lawfare (see figure 1). Gallup records a drastic drop in public confidence in the U.S. justice system and courts while these investigations were ongoing. Correlation does not equal causation, but it is compelling none-the-less.

Figure 1 shows confidence in the U.S. justice system and the courts declined during the Obama administration, stabilized during Trump’s administration until the pivotal 2020 election year (Covid lockdowns, Hunter Biden’s laptop, Trump acquittal, George Floyd) and then dropped dramatically, a drop that accelerated as Biden took office in 2021. The precipitous fall began early in 2020 coincident with the Hunter Biden laptop controversy.

Alleged Russia Collusion and Impeachment

1. Russia “collusion”, Steele dossier, and the Mueller investigation (2016–2019)

• Steele dossier and Clinton/DNC funding
  • The Steele dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS, which was hired by the law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
    
  • The FBI later used parts of the dossier in its FISA applications on Carter Page; the DOJ Inspector General later found significant problems with those applications. Wikipedia
    
  • The Steele dossier contained numerous allegations that were later proven false. FBI vetting showed that up to 90% of the specific allegations were wrong, unverifiable, or open-source rumor. In particular, the Michael Cohen “meeting in Prague,” did not occur and the salacious “pee tape” incident did not happen. Regardless, the FBI used some of the dossier as support for wiretap FISA applications.
    
• Crossfire Hurricane and FBI/CIA involvement
  • The FBI opened “Crossfire Hurricane” 31 July 2016 to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian interference. This was just three days after the FBI received two very thinly sourced Steele Reports.
    
  • Intelligence agencies (including the CIA) contributed assessments on Russian election interference, but public reporting does not show proof of a coordinated “plot” by those agencies to frame Trump; that’s a contested political interpretation rather than an established fact.
    
  • Notably, Attorney General William Barr opined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was launched “on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.” (Washington Post, December 9, 2019)
    
  • John Durham stated that: “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” After Durham’s statement received significant criticism, Barr said the statement “was necessary to avoid public confusion” because the media was reporting “that the issue of predication was sort of done and over” (Washington Post, December 9, 2019)
    
• Mueller Special Counsel investigation (May 2017–March 2019)
  • Appointed after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
    
  • Mueller’s report found extensive Russian interference and numerous contacts with Trump associates but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign staff and Russia; it outlined multiple episodes potentially relevant to obstruction of justice and left charging decisions to DOJ policy.
    
  • Attorney General Barr argued that the Mueller Report contained derogatory information without charges. He pointed out that prosecutors should either charge or remain silent. Mueller’s detailed obstruction section was unfair because it laid out evidence without indicting. This made the report political and not appropriate from a special prosecutor.
    
• First impeachment (2019–2020) and Russia context
  • The impeachment itself was formally about Ukraine (see next section), but the broader political narrative around Trump at that time was heavily shaped by the Russia/Mueller saga.
    

2. Ukraine phone call and first impeachment (2019–2020)

• Trump–Zelensky call and whistleblower complaint (July–August 2019)
  • A whistleblower complaint alleged that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations into Joe Biden and 2016‑related matters while U.S. military aid was being withheld.
    
  • Trump’s request was justified because in 2018 Biden bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations that he had pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating Burisma Holdings a company that employed his son Hunter Biden. According to John Soloman, who was a VP at The Hill at the time, Ukrainian officials have a file describing their investigation into Hunter Biden and his business partner Devon Archer. Soloman was attacked for his reporting but stands by it. The investigation was canceled when the investigator, Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin, was fired at Joe Biden’s request. The mainstream U.S. media reported that the firing was not because of the investigation into Hunter Biden, but because Shokin was not investigating other, unnamed, corrupt officials and the firing was instigated in cooperation with other unnamed governments. Using withheld U.S. government money to force the firing of a Ukrainian government official who is actively investigating Biden’s son is suspicious none-the-less and worth investigating. Then Vice-President Biden’s actions are like what President Trump was accused of in his impeachment. Source: Law & Crime.
    
• House impeachment (December 2019)
  • Trump was impeached on two articles:
    • Abuse of power (conditioning Ukrainian aid and a White House meeting on investigations)
      
    • Obstruction of Congress (refusing subpoenas and testimony)
      
  • The Senate acquitted him in February 2020.
    

This episode is often folded into “lawfare” narratives because it used constitutional and investigative tools in a highly partisan context, and the accusation is suspiciously like what Vice President Biden did to protect his son in 2016. But the 2019 impeachment followed formal impeachment procedures.

Second Trump Impeachment

Trump was impeached on January 13, 2021, for “incitement of insurrection” related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Senate later acquitted him. No court has ruled that Trump’s January 6 speech was criminal.

Timeline of key events

January 6, 2021 — Capitol attack

A crowd of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol while Congress was certifying the Electoral College results. The House argued that Trump’s words and actions encouraged the disruption.

January 11–13 — House impeachment process

• A single article of impeachment was introduced: “Incitement of Insurrection.”
  
• The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump.
  • 10 Republicans joined Democrats, making it the most bipartisan impeachment vote in U.S. history.
    

January 20 — Trump leaves office

Joe Biden was inaugurated. Trump’s Senate trial occurred after he left office, which is constitutionally allowed according to historical precedent.

February 9–13 — Senate trial

• House impeachment managers presented video evidence and Trump’s public statements.
  
• Trump’s defense argued:
  • His speech was protected by the First Amendment.
    
  • The impeachment was politically motivated.
    
  • The Senate lacked jurisdiction to try a former president (the Senate rejected this argument in a preliminary vote).
    

February 13 — Senate verdict

• Vote: 57 guilty, 43 not guilty.
  
• Seven Republicans voted to convict — the most bipartisan conviction vote ever.
  
• Conviction requires 67 votes, so Trump was acquitted.
  

What the impeachment article alleged

The House charged that Trump:

• Repeatedly made false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
  
• Urged supporters to “fight like hell” shortly before the Capitol breach.
  
• Failed to act quickly to stop the violence once it began.
  

The article argued that these actions constituted incitement and posed a threat to democratic processes.

Why the Senate acquitted

Senators who voted to acquit gave several reasons:

• Constitutional concerns about trying a former president.
  
• Belief that Trump’s speech did not meet the legal threshold for incitement.
  
• Concern that conviction would further divide the country.
  

Those who voted to convict argued:

• The evidence showed Trump encouraged and failed to stop the attack.
  
• Accountability was necessary to deter future attempts to disrupt democratic processes.
  

Historical significance

• First president impeached twice.
  
• Most bipartisan impeachment and conviction votes in U.S. history.
  
• Raised major constitutional questions about post‑presidency accountability.
  

Context

Trump did ask for a peaceful protest, but he also used phrases like “fight like hell.” Trump, Kash Patel, and Mark Meadows stated publicly that Trump wanted 10,000 troops at the capital to keep order, but Trump issued no order since it was illegal for him to do so. The responsibility for maintaining order at the Capital lies with the Capital Police Board, which consists of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Architect of the Capital, and the Chief of the Capital Police.

Trump’s help was not requested by the Capitol Police Board. Trump had no authority to intervene without a request. He needed a formal request from the Sergeants at Arms or the Capitol Police Board and he received no request. Thus, Trump’s acquittal was proper.

At 1:49PM on the day of the protest, the Capital Police Chief called the Pentagon and requested National Guard support. There was a lot of confusion in the Pentagon because they did not know how to respond or if they had any authority but after a delay the Guard was eventually deployed. The Capital Police should have requested the Guard prior to the protest, and the request should have gone directly to Trump, who did have the authority to deploy the Guard.

New York Attorney General civil fraud case (Trump Organization valuations)

• The NY AG investigated whether Trump and his company inflated or deflated asset values to obtain loans and insurance or reduce taxes.
  
• This led to a civil fraud suit and large financial judgments against Trump and his business entities.
  
• A Court of Appeals in New York vacated the extraordinary $454 million civil fraud judgement against President Donald Trump and his business on August 21^st 2025 on the grounds it was excessive and violated Trump’s 8^th Amendment rights against excessive fines. One of the judges (David Friedman) accused both the NY Attorney General and the original judge in the case, Arthur Engoron, of political motives in both charging Trump and in the fine imposed (source: Law & Crime). The case is mired in controversy, and the public was clearly not supportive of the conviction, since they re-elected Trump President just a few months later.
  
• This judgement was clearly unjustified since all the banks involved testified that they were not defrauded, thus there was no harm done to anyone, and the case had no basis or predicate.
  

Manhattan DA hush‑money criminal case (People v. Trump)

• The indictment in 2023 was for falsifying business records related to reimbursements to his lawyer Michael Dean Cohen for hush‑money payments to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
  
• The trial began April 15, 2024; a jury convicted Trump on 34 counts on May 30, 2024. Sentencing and appeals followed; ultimately an unconditional discharge was imposed in early 2025.
  
• Manhattan District Attorney Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records and tried to spin it as a felony by accusing Trump of falsifying them with intent to commit or conceal another crime, but he never identified what that crime was, nor did he prove or even establish that any crime had been committed. He only proposed that three possible crimes might have been committed by Trump or that he may have intended to commit these “crimes.”
  
• Bragg’s first possible “crime” was Trump was concealing a federal campaign-finance crime. However, Bragg was not allowed to enforce a federal crime and the DOJ and FEC, who could enforce the crime, declined to prosecute. No proof that the crime was committed was offered, but the judge allowed it anyway.
  
• Bragg’s second option was Trump intended to promote his election by unlawful means, but the unlawful means were never presented or defined. The law cited was for New York elections, not federal elections, and did not apply to Trump anyway. The judge allowed it anyway.
  
• Bragg’s third option was that Trump violated tax law when he paid Cohen’s retainer. However, no tax agency alleged a violation and no tax expert testified that the payments to Cohen constituted a crime. The judge allowed it anyway.
  
• The supposed misdemeanor crime was falsifying business records, and elevated to a felony based on an undefined and unproven “other crime.” The jury instructions were terrible, the jurors did not need to agree on the underlying crime, they did not have to find that any underlying crime occurred, they only needed to find that Trump intended to commit a crime, but proof of intent was not presented, this was jury opinion only.
  
• This case significantly damaged public confidence in the justice system. It is best characterized as a banana republic trial.
  

Washington, D.C. election‑obstruction case (Jan. 6)

• Brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, alleging schemes to overturn the 2020 election and obstruct the transfer of power.
  
• Trial originally scheduled for March 2024 but delayed while courts considered Trump’s claims of broad presidential immunity; later developments and Trump’s political status affected the DOJ’s position.
  
• Jack Smith’s January 6 case is stalled because the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for “official acts.” The trial cannot proceed until the trial judge determines which parts of Trump’s conduct are “official” and therefore immune.
  
• Smith charged Trump with four federal felonies:
  • Conspiracy to defraud the United States
    
  • Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
    
  • Obstruction of an official proceeding
    
  • Conspiracy against rights (interfering with the right to vote)
    
• Trump raised a constitutional defense: presidential immunity
  • A president cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while performing official duties.
    
  • This argument had never been tested in criminal court.
    
  • The D.C. trial judge rejected it. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected it.
    
  • Trump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    
• The Supreme Court’s ruling (July 2024): Presidents have immunity for official acts
  • Presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers.
    
  • Presidents have presumptive immunity for official acts.
    
  • Presidents have no immunity for private acts.
    
  • But the Court did not decide which of Trump’s actions were official vs. private.
    
  • Instead, it sent the case back to the trial court to sort that out.
    
  • This is what froze the case.
    
• The case is now stuck, Judge Tanya Chutkan must now:
  • examine each allegation,
    
  • determine whether it was an “official act,”
    
  • decide whether evidence about that act can be used,
    
  • and decide whether the act itself can be charged.
    
  • This is a fact‑intensive, slow process.
    
  • Every ruling she makes can be appealed again.
    
  • There is no trial date, no movement.
    
  • The case is effectively paused.
    
• The practical effect: the case cannot go to trial anytime soon, even if Chutkan rules quickly:
  • Trump will appeal again.
    
  • The D.C. Circuit will review.
    
  • The Supreme Court may review again.
    
  • This cycle could take months or years.
    
• Because of this, most legal analysts — including those who support the prosecution — acknowledge:
  • The D.C. Jan. 6 case is unlikely to reach trial before the 2026 election.
    
  • That’s not a prediction of outcome — just a procedural reality.
    
• The Supreme Court ruling is consequential and creates new hurdles
  • A. Evidence exclusion, official acts cannot be used as evidence.
    
  • B. Charge exclusion, if an act is “official,” it cannot be part of the indictment.
    
  • C. Endless appeals, every ruling can be appealed
    
  • D. Novel legal territory, no court has ever applied criminal immunity to a former president before. Everything is being litigated from scratch.
    
• Summary
  • Jack Smith’s D.C. Jan. 6 case is not dismissed, but it is frozen.
    
  • The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling requires the trial judge to re‑evaluate the entire indictment.
    
  • That process is slow and subject to multiple appeals.
    
  • As a result, the case is unlikely to move forward in the near future.
    

Southern District of Florida classified‑documents case

• Charges related to retention of classified documents at Mar‑a‑Lago and alleged obstruction of efforts to retrieve them.
  
• Complex pretrial litigation under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) led to repeated postponements; after Trump’s 2024 election victory the DOJ ultimately dropped the case.
  

These federal cases are central to the “lawfare” framing because they involve a former (and later returning) president and novel questions about immunity and prosecutorial discretion. Since the President has the power to declassify documents, this charge is very suspect, especially since others, like Senator and VP Joe Biden, who had no such power, have also taken classified documents into their homes. The DOJ argued that while the President can declassify documents, he did not follow established procedures. The President argued the process is not required.

Georgia Fulton County RICO‑style indictment (2023)

• The Fulton County DA charged Trump and others with racketeering and related offenses tied to efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results (including the “find 11,780 votes” call).
  
• The case became entangled in disputes over DA Willis’ conduct and conflicts of interest; parts of the prosecution were pared back and, by late 2025, remaining counts were dismissed after state‑level procedural rulings.
  

Banking and “de‑banking” issues

This part is less centralized and more about private‑sector risk decisions than formal prosecutions:

• Deutsche Bank and other lenders
  • Over several years, some major banks reduced or ended their business with Trump or the Trump Organization, citing risk, compliance, and reputational concerns.
    
  • These decisions are documented in financial reporting but are not formally part of criminal “lawfare”; they sit at the intersection of politics, public pressure, and bank risk management.
    
• Post‑Jan. 6 and reputational risk
  • After Jan. 6, 2021, some institutions distanced themselves from Trump‑related entities (including certain banks and business partners), again framed by critics as “de‑banking” and by the institutions as risk and brand management.
    

Because these are private decisions, they don’t have a single official docket or timeline like the court cases; you mostly find them in business and financial press coverage rather than legal trackers.

How “lawfare” fits over this timeline

• Documented facts vs. interpretation
  • The investigations, impeachments, and prosecutions above are real, documented processes with public records, indictments, and court outcomes.
    
  • The idea that they form a single, centrally orchestrated “lawfare” campaign—especially involving agencies like FBI/CIA acting as political weapons—is a political and analytical claim, not something formally established in the record.
    
  • The timing of the events and their legally “flimsy” nature argue that these are not normal criminal and civil legal actions and they are “lawfare.” It is also well-documented that others have done similar things and were not charged with any crimes. These seem tailored to Donald Trump specifically.
    

This is the first of a three-part series on Donald Trump and his battles against the news media and the deep state. The second is on the 2020 election, and the third is on the persistent claims that he is a liar.