Everything that’s old is new again, and the walls are closing in on Donald Trump. At least, that’s the story coming from the mainstream media over the last day after a judge proclaimed that the former president “more likely than not” committed felony obstruction of Congress in relation to the 2020 election.

That came in the midst of a ruling that more documents must be turned over to the January 6th committee, which is currently wasting time and money in the House of Representatives chasing the ghost of an organized insurrection.

BREAKING: Federal judge finds former Pres. Trump "more likely than not" committed felony obstruction in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. https://t.co/Qiw5iA3Ggg

— ABC News (@ABC) March 28, 2022

A federal judge has found that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” committed felony obstruction in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

U.S District Judge David Carter said in the ruling that Trump’s former lawyer John Eastman must turn over most documents he is withholding from the Jan. 6 House committee investigating the attack on the U.S Capitol.

The judge went on to give his reasoning for such a statement, asserting that a draft memo circulated by Trump surrogates was tantamount to an organized plan to stop Congress from certifying the election via illegal means and constituted criminal obstruction.

“The eleventh document is a chain forwarding to Dr. Eastman a draft memo written for President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani,” Carter wrote. “The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action.”

“The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal,” Carter wrote.

“The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” wrote the judge. “Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it to be disclosed.”

With all due respect to this Clinton-appointed judge, that’s one of the most insane interpretations of the law I’ve ever read. A draft memo, which was never instituted, and which itself didn’t necessarily contain any knowingly illegal actions, could not have constituted obstruction of Congress because, and stick with me here, Congress was not obstructed. Further, a “conspiracy to defraud the United States” should probably include some actual attempt to defraud the United States, right? On what planet does an unrealized draft memo qualify?

This is the same playbook that the left attempted to run during the Mueller investigation. Time and again, Trump was accused of criminal obstruction of justice only for it to become abundantly clear that he never actually obstructed anything. Are we now trying to punish pre-crime or something?

Even if you believe it would have been illegal for Mike Pence to send the electors back to states (I’ve written on the fact that I don’t think he had that power, so I’m hardly a defender of the strategy), batting the legality of the idea around and then not pursuing it is not a crime. Besides, if it’s obstruction this judge is worried about, should Democrats now be charged with felony obstruction for attempting to stop the certification of the 2004 and 2016 elections? Or does his interpretation of the law only apply to Republicans?

In the end, there continues to be nothing actually here. There was no grand, pre-planned insurrection attempt, which is why Trump left the White House without a fight. January 6th itself wasn’t a coup, and there was no top-level obstruction of the Congress’ certification of the election, which is why the election was certified. There was simply Trump and his associates discussing options to combat the fraud they felt had occurred. It doesn’t matter if one disagrees with their take on the election. It’s still not criminal, and to try to criminalize political opposition in that way is dangerous and sets a horrible precedent.