The mainstream media reports that the net is tightening around President Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the Mueller investigation is methodically taking out close allies surrounding Trump, such as Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, and expect to uncover the pit of Russia collusion at the end of that process.

There is, however, another far more sinister interpretation of the chain of events: The United States is in the middle of a cold civil war, between the democratically elected president on one hand and the deep state allies of the Democratic Party. It is a form of lawfare, where the deep state actors weaponize the justice system to overthrow the government of the people.

On the surface, this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but keep in mind that this is normal in corrupt third world countries today. The scheme works like this:

1. Make thousands of laws and regulations, ensuring that everyone becomes a lawbreaker.
2. Start data mining your political opponent – and no-one else – for crimes.
3. When you find a violation of the law – and you will – use this to overthrow your opponent.

This happened to Dinesh D’Souza when he criticized President Barack Obama. Suddenly he found himself as the only person in U.S. history that was jailed for a minor campaign finance law violation, the political equivalent of jaywalking.

In-kind Contributions

Now the same corrupt elements are trying to take down Trump by similar means. The entire basis for this attempted coup d’état is the fact that Trump paid Stormy Daniels hush money out of his own pocket to stay silent in the media about an alleged affair more than a decade earlier. The Mueller probe interprets this as an unreported in-kind campaign contribution, which would be a crime. The reason it is considered a campaign contribution is because it is payment for something that could affect the outcome of an election.

While that is precisely as absurd and contorted an interpretation of the law as it sounds, let us for the sake of argument assume that it is correct. Consider now the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid millions of dollars for the Steele dossier, and did not report it as a campaign contribution but funneled the money through a third party.

Would you say that the Steele dossier – which is the entire basis for the Russia collusion FISA warrant and the Mueller investigation – could affect the outcome of an election? It could easily be described as the mother of all campaign contributions.

If the law were applied equally and fairly, Clinton would be the one in major trouble right now, not Trump.

Internet philosopher Stefan Molyneux has also aptly pointed out that the unreported in-kind campaign contribution that Clinton received from an entire anti-Trump mainstream media amounts to billions of dollars’ worth of advertising value.

Rule of Law

The founding fathers had full knowledge of precisely this abhorrent corruption in Britain, and they had the wisdom to formulate the antidote to such weaponization of the law. The solution is as simple as it is elegant. The laws regulating citizens should be so few in numbers that an average person can know all of them and avoid breaking any law from ignorance.

But this solution requires us to undo most of the law, scrap most regulations, get rid of most alphabet agencies and departments, and return to the original vision of the founding fathers: minimal government for maximum individual sovereignty.