Analysis: The Plan to Stop Donald Trump: LAWFARE…

2y ago Dec 23, 2023 at 8:15 PM

The Plan to Stop Donald Trump: LAWFARE…

Video transcript 6:29

>> So big news for former President Trump as the Supreme Court declines to speed up the ruling on Jack Smith's immunity case against him. Trump taking the truth social to celebrate the court's decision saying in part, crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring the sham case. And now they've tried and failed to rush this witch hunt through the courts. So here to react is Fox News contributor and former counselor to President Trump, Kellyanne Conway. Good morning Kellyanne, Merry Christmas to you. Glad to have you with us. >> Good morning Will. >> I'm really fascinated to hear your analysis of this. Every time one of these indictments or one of these rushes to the courts seems to have been pushed by Democrats, it's resulted in a polling bump for Donald Trump. They seem to be banking though Kellyanne on this idea that if they can just get a conviction before election season, that'll flip the polling. Do you believe that's true if one of these four criminal cases did come back in time with a guilty verdict for Donald Trump and he was somehow convicted, set aside the likelihood. But if that did happen, would it flip the polling Kellyanne? >> It wouldn't flip the polling well and thanks for having a Merry Christmas to you and yours and your co-host. It wouldn't flip the polling. You see the Reuters poll when asked what a conviction on any of the criminal counts make you vote for against Donald Trump. A slim majority say they'd vote against him. But when you add Biden to the equation as the Wall Street Journal poll did, Trump's actually beating Biden 46 to 45 if he were to be convicted. Then they asked if Joe Biden were to be impeached, would you vote for Trump or Biden? And the Wall Street Journal poll found that Trump is beating Biden by 5 points 46 to 41. So we can't forget, none of this is in a vacuum. You don't go into the ballot box and it says Trump or not Trump. It says Trump versus Joe Biden. And just as we knew in 2016, and I said many times then I'll say again, you have to set aside everything you think about that individual. And in this case, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' manmade crisis of an administration that has created nothing but hurt and pain domestically at our border, in our communities, our big cities, in your grocery cart, at the gas pump, you name it, and abroad now. We can potentially, people know this, it's a binary choice. It is not a referendum just on Biden. It is a choice between your life with Donald Trump and your life with Joe Biden. Look, this guy, Joe Biden, was vice president for eight years, Will. He was the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I would think a half a century in Washington would at least buy us a little grace and respect around the globe. Instead, we may have one foreign policy entanglement in national security disaster per year of the Biden administration, Afghanistan 2021, Ukraine 2022, Israel 2023. And it could be Taiwan 2020, 2024. President Xi Jinping has the guts to say to Joe Biden's face, P.S., I'm going to reunify. The sin in them for that is invade Taiwan. Just telling you, Joe. So but the other thing is the Biden people have put way too much into the judicial system to try to keep Joe Biden there for a second term. I have a better idea. Why not just pass better policies? If you have a really good record as president, chances are you'll be reelected and they're just not. They can't beat him on policy. It's too late for that, though. Through the judicial system. To your point, though, it's too late. It's too late to change your policy. That's why Trump's ahead. That's why Trump's ahead. So here's what I want to ask you. So that's why. OK, if the legal if law fair doesn't work, that's that that seems to be plan number one law fair. And again, the goal is not to elect Joe Biden. It is to stop Donald Trump. I think they've made that clear. So if law fair isn't going to work in time and then the polling is, as you've laid out and we've seen that Joe Biden can't beat Donald Trump again, if the plan is to stop Donald Trump, when do they move to the option, remove Joe Biden, like find someone else who can beat Donald Trump? Well, speaking of running out of time, I think that's too little too late. They should have done that. If I were a Democrat, I would have gotten rid of Biden and Harris, rolled the dice well and said, we'll probably lose in 2024, but we'll save the party and we'll restore the party that was once known for youth and energy and the future. They had JFK and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, even Jimmy Carter was in his fifties when he in his early fifties when he was elected to the White House. Now they turn around and they get these establishment Loch Ness monster creatures of the Steve C. Swamp like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to lead the party and look where we are. But I think it's too little too late. I think some Democrats like Gavin Newsom would rather this ticket just bleed out. Well, we'll see. I think Joe Biden's bigger play is to have all these third party candidates to help him the way Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton say in 1992. So Perot got zero electoral votes, but he got 19% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton got 68.8% of the electoral votes and only 45% of the popular vote. That would be his play. The problem is he's not the challenger here. He's the incumbent and Perot really helped Bill Clinton and hurt the incumbent. And right now it looks like third party's pulled from Biden, not Trump. So they'd have to find the candidate that would pull from Trump. There you go. There you go. They need to and they haven't yet, but there are lots of billionaires out there, 1100 or so in this country. Will I read that? I mean, if somebody can say I'm worth 7 billion, why not spend one seventh without having fun in the presidential race and the consultants, you know, I call it staff infection. They'll go and take their half a billion and embarrass that person the way Bloomberg's people did. But look, I think if you're Joe Biden, you stick to plan A. Plan A is what you just said. Get Trump through the legal system, and they believe that in the 91 counts, if he's convicted on one game over, if they can send the president to jail, God forbid, for one night, that's enough for them. But it's not going to work, and it's not going to work for another reason. Joe Biden probably won't want to debate Donald Trump. We don't even know if Joe Biden can stand still at a podium for 90 minutes. We have no evidence of that, let alone being able to defend this horrible record. So I think that it's Donald Trump who's saying, look, I want to debate him. Here's what I would do to Iran. Here's what I would do with China. Here's what I would do in the Middle East. I think Joe Biden, they're counting on one of these cases being accelerated, being able to convict the president and saying to people, you don't want a president that's being convicted of a criminal charge. We've never had that in history. I just don't think it's going to be enough. People feel so desperate. Last point. We as voters, we talk about and even complain about what offends us. We vote according to what affects us, and that's really the difference here. People are going to be very self-interested, as well they should be, as voters. That's why Trump's ahead in every swing state.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-20. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Vulnerable

Authorship

Uncertain

Intensity

42%

This eight-word post functions as a caption for an attached video, yet accomplishes significant psychological and rhetorical work within that minimal frame. Emerging from a period of acute legal pressure — the Colorado Supreme Court's historic 14th Amendment disqualification and concurrent federal proceedings — the post reflects a vulnerable narcissistic state characterized by persecution framing rather than grandiose counterattack. The 'LAWFARE' construction is the post's core payload: a thought-terminating cliché (Lifton, 1961) that collapses independent legal proceedings into a unified conspiracy narrative, pre-inoculating followers against any adverse legal outcome. Authorship signals favor aide mediation: 3:15 PM EST timing, video production requirements, and headline syntax all point away from authentic Trump, though the capitalization and ellipsis retain his stylistic trace. Defense mechanisms include pathological denial (legal proceedings dismissed as illegitimate by definition), splitting (law/lawfare binary), and projection (coordinated plan attributed to opponents). The rhetorical sophistication — particularly the 'the plan' definite article presupposing established conspiracy — suggests professional communication strategy. Danger assessment is elevated at the pattern level: sustained judicial delegitimization normalizes non-compliance with legal outcomes and may prime followers to view accountability as persecution warranting resistance, even if this specific post contains no explicit violent content.

Authorship Analysis

Aide-Written

Indicators:

3:15 PM EST — business hours, outside authentic Trump late-night/early-morning window
Attached video requires media team production and coordination
Headline-colon syntax ('The Plan to Stop Donald Trump: LAWFARE…') is structured, not stream-of-consciousness
No typos or grammatical errors
Ellipsis ('…') is an authentic Trump stylistic tic

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Vulnerable State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Exposure (Colorado Supreme Court 14th Amendment disqualification; concurrent federal legal proceedings)

Sentiment

-0.62

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

75%

Antisocial

45%

Paranoid

70%

Sadism

10%

Defense Mechanisms:

denialprojectionsplitting

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

10%

Parasocial Techniques:

Victim framing to elicit protective instinct in followersConspiratorial 'plan' language to create in-group epistemologyVideo invitation ('…') to deepen media engagement and commitment

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

Sustained delegitimization of independent judicial proceedings as coordinated political persecution
Epistemic closure framing ('lawfare') pre-inoculates followers against any adverse legal outcome, potentially normalizing non-compliance
Pattern contribution: 'lawfare' label, repeated across weeks, may prime audience to view legal accountability as justifying resistance
No direct violent content in this post; danger is pattern-level, not post-level

Gaslighting Detected:

'The Plan' — definite article asserts coordinated conspiracy as established fact without evidence
'LAWFARE' label denies institutional independence of courts, DOJ, and state attorneys general
Framing legitimate constitutional and criminal proceedings as illegitimate political warfare inverts the factual record
Epistemic frame is self-sealing: any adverse legal outcome becomes confirming evidence of persecution

Reality Distortions:

Independent judicial proceedings across multiple jurisdictions recast as single coordinated 'plan'
'LAWFARE' collapses constitutionally authorized prosecutorial activity into category of illegitimacy
Implied coordination among DOJ, Colorado courts, Georgia AG, and NY AG — no documented evidence of central coordination
Persecution narrative absorbs Colorado 14th Amendment ruling without engaging its constitutional substance

Fact Checks (2)

"There is a singular coordinated 'plan' to stop Trump using legal mechanisms"

Unverifiable

Multiple separate legal proceedings across federal, state, and civil jurisdictions initiated by different actors with distinct legal bases. No documented evidence of central coordination among DOJ, Colorado courts, Georgia AG, and New York AG. The claim of intentional coordination is asserted, not evidenced.

"Legal proceedings against Trump constitute 'lawfare' (politically motivated rather than legally grounded)"

Mostly False

All proceedings have independent legal bases arising from documented conduct. Courts and juries have found factual merit across multiple proceedings (NY civil fraud judgment, Colorado ballot ruling). Political timing concerns exist in some cases (Smith indictment timing debated) but do not negate legal substance. The blanket 'lawfare' characterization is contested and evidence-light.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Analysis: "The Plan to Stop Donald Trump: LAWFARE…" — 2023-12-23

Overview

This post is structurally unusual: a brief eight-word caption paired with an attached video (MP4). The text itself functions as a title card rather than an argument, making it one of the most text-sparse entries in the recent posting sequence. Analysis is necessarily constrained to the linguistic frame, the attached media cue, and the dense surrounding context — multiple legal reverses occurring simultaneously on December 23, 2023.

Authorship Attribution

UTC: 2023-12-23T20:15:55Z

Local (Mar-a-Lago, EST = UTC−5): 3:15 PM

Trump almost certainly spent the Christmas holiday period at Mar-a-Lago. A 3:15 PM local time post falls squarely in business hours. Several converging indicators point toward aide-mediated production:

Business hours (3:15 PM EST): outside the characteristic late-night/early-morning authentic Trump window
Professional video attachment: production and coordination of video content requires media-team involvement
Clean formatting: no typos, no capitalization eruptions beyond the deliberate "LAWFARE" brand term, no incomplete thoughts
Headline syntax: "The Plan to Stop Donald Trump: LAWFARE…" has the structured, colon-separated format of a media title card, not stream-of-consciousness

Residual authentic markers:

The ellipsis ("…") is a Trump stylistic tic, creating conspiratorial open-endedness
"LAWFARE" all-caps echoes his habitual emphasis-by-capitalization
The minimalism could reflect his approval of the framing without direct authorship

Assessment: Likely aide-produced video content with possible Trump directional input on the "LAWFARE" framing. The brevity may reflect a deliberate media share rather than an impromptu post. Confidence: medium.

Psychological State and Triggers

Triggering Context

December 23 was an extraordinarily dense day for legal threat stimuli:

Colorado Supreme Court 4–3 ruling disqualifying Trump from the primary ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause — a historically unprecedented attack on his candidacy
SCOTUS rejection of Jack Smith's expedited immunity appeal (celebrated in concurrent posts)
DC Circuit immunity appeal filed by Trump's team the same day
Georgia defamation suit continuation

The simultaneous presence of a crushing blow (Colorado) and a partial victory (SCOTUS delay) creates a psychologically complex moment. This post lands in the vulnerable zone — victimhood framing predominates.

Narcissistic State: Vulnerable

The "Plan to Stop" framing positions Trump as the target of organized persecution — a classic vulnerable narcissistic presentation. Rather than grandiose self-promotion, the post casts him as a powerful figure under siege, which paradoxically requires an equally powerful (if conspiratorial) enemy. The victimhood is itself a status claim.

Trigger Type: Narcissistic injury

The trigger is compound: existential threats to electoral participation (Colorado) and criminal exposure (federal indictments). The "LAWFARE" concept allows for a unified grievance narrative that absorbs all proceedings into a single framing.

Defense Mechanisms

Denial (Pathological): The "lawfare" label functions as wholesale denial of the legitimacy of legal proceedings. Criminal indictments, civil suits, and constitutional adjudication are collapsed into a single category of illegitimacy, denying the reality that courts have independent authority.
Projection (Immature): Attributing a coordinated "plan" to opponents mirrors the strategic planning Trump and his allies have actually engaged in (documented attempts to reverse the 2020 election). The accusation of orchestrated persecution projects back the reality of organized political-legal maneuvering.
Splitting (Immature): The binary "LAWFARE vs. real law" is a textbook splitting maneuver — legitimate legal challenges become persecution, and all of his own legal actions become righteous.

Rhetorical Analysis

Devices

Single-concept condensation ("LAWFARE"): The neologism-blend of "law" + "warfare" accomplishes significant rhetorical work in one word. It simultaneously delegitimizes legal proceedings, militarizes the framing (activating Warrior archetype in the audience), and implies that Trump is a combatant rather than a defendant — shifting moral status entirely.
Implied conspiracy framing ("The Plan"): The definite article "the" — not "a plan" but "THE plan" — presupposes coordinated, singular, intentional conspiracy. This grammatical choice short-circuits evidential requirements: the plan is presented as established fact.
Open ellipsis as invitation: The trailing "…" functions as a hook, directing the viewer toward the video for the full revelation. This is a classic cliffhanger/teaser device — epistemically it suggests the proof is forthcoming, maintaining suspense and engagement.
Third-person self-reference: Referring to himself as "Donald Trump" rather than "me" or "I" enacts a curious self-dramatization — he becomes the protagonist of a story, a figure of historical significance being acted upon by history.
Passive victimhood grammar: The structure "The Plan to Stop Donald Trump" positions Trump as grammatical object, not subject — he is being stopped, not acting. This reinforces the vulnerable/persecuted framing.

Archetypal Analysis

Primary archetype activated: Victim/Martyr — The structure of the post situates Trump in the martyr role: a powerful truth-teller targeted by coordinated persecution. This is a variant of the Hero archetype in its most vulnerable phase — the hero does not triumph here; they are besieged.

Secondary archetype: Warrior — "LAWFARE" militarizes the framing. The legal system becomes a battlefield; Trump and his followers are under attack. The Warrior archetype transforms passive victimhood into an active call to defend.

Shadow projection: What is being projected onto "the plan" — strategic coordination, use of institutional power for political ends — was documented in Trump's own post-2020 behavior. The shadow is clearly visible here.

Cognitive Markers

The post is too brief (8 words) to permit meaningful cognitive assessment. No word-finding difficulty, paraphasia, tangentiality, or confabulation can be assessed. Syntactic complexity is trivially low by design (it is a title). No deviation from baseline is flagged on this post; the brevity is a structural artifact, not a cognitive indicator.

Gaslighting / Reality Distortion

Delegitimization of legal process: Characterizing constitutionally authorized prosecutorial and judicial activity as a "plan to stop" a political candidate erases the institutional independence of the courts, DOJ, and state attorneys general — implying all are coordinated actors.
Epistemic closure signal: "LAWFARE" operates as a thought-terminating cliché (Lifton, 1961) — followers who accept the frame need no longer evaluate individual legal proceedings on their merits. All adverse legal action is, by definition, persecution.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"There is a singular coordinated 'plan' to stop Trump using legal mechanisms"	Unverifiable	Multiple separate legal proceedings across federal, state, and civil jurisdictions initiated by different actors with distinct legal bases. No documented evidence of central coordination among DOJ, Colorado courts, Georgia AG, and New York AG. The claim of intentional coordination is asserted, not evidenced.
"Legal proceedings against Trump constitute 'lawfare' (politically motivated rather than legally grounded)"	Mostly False	All proceedings have independent legal bases arising from documented conduct. Courts and juries have found factual merit across multiple proceedings (NY civil fraud judgment, Colorado ballot ruling). Political timing concerns exist in some cases (Smith indictment timing debated) but do not negate legal substance. The blanket 'lawfare' characterization is contested and evidence-light.

Overall Veracity: 35%

Danger Assessment

Level: Elevated

This post does not contain explicit violent imagery, eliminationist language, or direct calls to action. However, it contributes to a systemic pattern with danger implications:

Sustained delegitimization of the judicial system as a coordinated political weapon normalizes potential non-compliance with legal outcomes
"LAWFARE" framing, when amplified to millions of followers, may encourage followers to view legal accountability as illegitimate oppression — a predisposing condition for mobilization
The video content (not assessable here) may contain more direct content

The danger lies in pattern-level accumulation rather than this individual post.

Longitudinal Context

This post fits a clear cluster pattern visible across the December 22–23 sequence:

SCOTUS rejection of expedited immunity → triumphalist/grandiose posts ("unanimously rejected")
Colorado ballot removal (structurally absent from Trump's own posts, notably) → this video share may be a channel for addressing that wound indirectly
The "LAWFARE" theme is consistent with the broader January 2023–present narrative of legal persecution

The relative restraint here (no all-caps rage, no epithets, no direct insults) may indicate either aide mediation or strategic communication around the Colorado ruling — a wound too sensitive for his usual attack response.