[Analysis, Opinion, Notes and Tunes]
NOTES
As most everyone knows by now, Former President Trump has been indicted in Georgia on more charges stemming from the 2020 Presidential campaign. Again, the criminal charges in question deal with election tampering. In this regard, one cannot help but to note with considerable sadness the fact that many folks, including some of our leaders, appear to distrust the legal system. A major reason that it is sad is that our Founding Fathers established our court system so that disagreements amongst citizens, companies and/or the government and its officials can be resolved peacefully based on the law and not upon race, color, religion, sex, who they are, what office they hold or party affiliation. Without a trusted court system there is nowhere for people to turn to resolve their differences. If distrust in the legal system becomes pervasive and persists for very long, the inevitable result would be violence, bloodshed, civil war and quite possibly the rise of a totalitarian police state. And let there be no doubt, that any such police state would very likely establish some oppressive system that those lucky enough to be in power would call “law and order” but which would, very likely be, a system set up solely to keep dictators and their thugs fat and happy, and more importantly, in power.
And now, alarmingly, Congressman Gaetz, a right-wing Republican and his cohorts, want to defund (that is, cut/reduce funding of) the special prosecutor (Jack Smith etc) responsible for handling Trump’s Mara-a-Lago, January 6th Capitol riot and 2020 election related charges. Many hard right-wingers justify this type of action on the basis that Democrats are trying to “weaponize” the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the entire legal system by selectively impeaching, indicting and generally picking on Trump Either that, or they point to the Hunter Biden situation and some kind of alleged payola from foreign governments that somehow affected Joe Biden’s job performance in the past. *******
What the weaponization of DOJ argument fails to take into account is that DOJ cannot, acting alone, put anyone in jail. DOJ itself cannot convict anyone of anything. In the case of most criminal defendants, including Trump and his co-defendants (Giuliani, Eastman et al), before they can be convicted and punished, they have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an independent jury in a trial presided over by a legally trained judge who will allow the jury to consider only legally admissible evidence.
Let’s be clear. A trial by jury, which Trump and his co-defendants will receive, will have the following characteristics that are specifically designed to make the trial fair and the result legitimate, to-wit: All evidence will be taken under oath and penalty of perjury (thus better assuring that all witness tell the truth and only the truth); a guilty verdict can be reached only if proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is shown. The other vital characteristics of the trial will include: a neutral judge* bound by the rules of evidence who makes all rulings as to the admissibility of the evidence based on long established pre-existing evidentiary rules; the jury is supposed to be independent and randomly drawn from members of the community where the case is tried; members of the jury are vetted to make sure that they have no pre-disposition or bias about the guilt or innocence of the defendants in the case. Moreover, jurors aren’t allowed to listen to news stories about the case, or talk to anyone about the case while the trial is going on. After the evidence is heard the judge instructs the jury as to what the law is regarding the alleged crimes that are charged, then the jury decides whether the facts that they’ve found when applied to the law as instructed by the judge prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant based solely on what the law is, and not their own preconceived personal opinions as to what the law is or should be. And, the jury verdict must be unanimous, before any defendant, including Trump, can be convicted. **
In short, the courts and the criminal justice system are the fairest and most peaceful way to resolve some of the most serious and contentious internal issues that this country has faced since the Civil War. Voters should hold their elected representatives responsible to keep their hands off these vitally important cases and let the system work. (And the failure of any politician to do so should be grounds for voting them out of office.) Political intermeddling will only further sew distrust in the courts, divide the country and could cause errors to be made in case outcome. And in cases like Trump’s, that would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. It’s vitally important to let the result be what it should be with no rigged and false outcomes. ******
Any action to cook-the-books so to speak or to pre-determine the outcome of these trials is an offense bordering on sedition because it seeks to destroy the only principled and peaceful way to resolve fundamental disputes that go right to the essence of the rule of law and our democracy. Cutting off the funding of DOJ prosecutors is an attempt to do just that and supporters of any DOJ funding reduction or cutoff are engaging in the type of purely partisan politics that is worse than anything this country has seen since its founding. ***
Regarding Hunter Biden and allegations of improprieties on both his part and the President, those matters must be dealt with separately. Why? They are not relevant to any of the charges filed against Trump. If Joe and/or Hunter Biden are shown to have committed any wrongdoings they should be so charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and/or in the case of the President, possibly impeached and removed from office. The point is, however, that Biden problems are not relevant to the Trump and election tampering cases. Too often right-leaning TV networks and news outlets excessively dwell on Biden problems simply to divert attention from Trump’s problems by focusing on right-wing allegations that the Bidens and/or the Democrats are corrupt and/or leading the country astray.
While there is indeed plenty to criticize Democrats and progressives about, particularly when it comes to trying to shove wholesale cultural change down everyone’s throat, to date they have not been shown to be guilty of trying to unfairly tamper with fundamentally important election and other power transfer and retention related processes. Remember 60 courts with Republican and Democratic judges actually found the opposite, namely, that there was no tampering with 2020 election results. In short, the sins of Democrats, at this point in time, do not bear directly on the effective functioning of our Constitution or its institutions. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the allegations against Trump et al should juries in Trump-related cases find the former President guilty. ****
The bottom line is that we desperately need for our politicians and elected leaders to play fairly and by the rules. As voters, we must insist upon it. Rigging legal and judicial processes, like rigging elections, cannot under any circumstances be tolerated.
[Footnotes at the bottom of this article.]
TUNES
Okay. That was kind of intense.
So, let’s blow off the steam
And replace it with some sizzle.
https://youtu.be/Rlh3XGtvHS4?si=GwHgjDv5_26eDKcV
[Artificial intelligence was not used in the preparation or publication of this article.]
David Dixon Lentz August 24, 2023
Corrected and revised 8/25/23, 8/26/23 and 8/28/23
© Copyright 2023; David Dixon Lentz; All Rights Reserved
FOOTNOTES
.*. It must be conceded that that in a few instances, the neutrality of the judge has been called into question. However, allegations of judges being biased have gone both ways. Various judges have been alleged to be “pro” Trump, while others “anti” Trump. Much of this is undoubted political bellyaching by biased Democrats and Republicans alike. However, one has to admit that there are times when a better assignment of cases amongst judges could have been made all in the interests of maintaining the appearance of unbiased neutrality. Clearly, a judge who has been nominated to be appointed to the bench by a defendant isn’t likely to be perceived as the most neutral. And, of course, perceptions of impartiality are extremely important especially in high profile cases involving vital national issues. The saving grace, if there is one, in such an instances is that federal judicial appointments are subject to confirmation by the entire Senate, which arguably attenuates, at least to some extent, the perceived affect that the appointment has on a judge’s decision-making and thus hopefully makes the judge in question more neutral. But here again, in the Trump case, as in all jury trials, it’s the jury that ultimately decides guilt or innocence. Not the judge.
** Anything man-made occasionally malfunctions. Generally speaking, however, in the vast majority of situations, the results reached by our courts in the United States are fair and trustworthy. As has been shouted from the mountain tops many times on this website, the U.S. legal system, despite having occasional faults, is certainly one of the most trustworthy in the World. Its trustworthiness is enhanced, of course, by the possibility of appeal to a higher court in those cases where one of the litigants feels that something was done improperly or the result not in accordance with the law.
*** The argument of some to “let the voters decide” (presumably at the next Presidential election) is misguided. In a country where the rule of law prevails, the determination of whether existing laws have been broken is not one that should be left to election processes. Why? Election debate and rhetoric is always full of hyperbole, exaggeration, and usually designed specifically to fire up a crowd or inflame passions. Moreover, statements on the campaign trail are not made under oath and penalty of perjury. Unsworn statements and passionate, inflamed and often exaggerated rhethoric is precisely the type of information and evidence that courts are designed to filter out, because it considering it usually leads to erroneous results. Leaving certain issues, like criminal charges to left to the voters almost guarantees a lynch mob and/or partisan mentality. The rule of law would not prevail. Mob rule would.
**** We’ve written about this before, but a huge concern is that if hard right-wingers start engaging in actions designed to bring government to a halt, what will the President do? One can only hope that cooler and more rational heads prevail in Congress. This is because governmental stalemate on vital issues, if it forces a governmental shutdown that lasts long enough, or which makes government in general disfunctional—increases the chances of a future demagogue seducing the American electorate into turning to a dictator. By the same token, however, a President taking actions and assuming powers beyond those set forth in the Constitution also sets a very dangerous precedent and invites actions by future Presidents to assume more power than they lawfully have simply by taking action, by executive order, without Congressional approval. Either way the future of our representative form of government might be called into question.
***** And we include in this discussion of governmental disfunction, and action or boycott that forces a default in the payment of U.S. government bonds. Such an action would clearly cause an increase in all future governmental borrowing thus making even more difficult to balance the budget in the future. And worse, interest on U.S. governmental debt is the basis for many other interest rates world wide. Not only could would the interest rate on many types of mortgages increase but there could even be a global financial panic. For all the criticism of the United States by foreign countries, when it comes to finance, the general feeling around the world is, if the U.S. isn’t stable enough to pay its bills, who is?
****** The fact of the matter is that its highly improper for a politician to even comment as to the propriety or likelihood of convicting anyone, including Trump. How can anyone express a legitimate opinion, before trial, as to whether the charges or a possible conviction are proper or not. They haven’t been in court hearing what the judge and the jurors will hear. They haven’t heard what the testimony under oath is. They haven’t heard the witnesses being cross-examined by opposing counsel. Moreover, commenting on a case only makes finding impartial jurors more difficult.
******* Candor requires one to concede, of course, that criminal prosecution is in fact a very stressful thing for anyone to go through and, in that sense, the mere filing of charges, or even the threat thereof, is a powerful weapon because of the inhibiting effect it might have on the lawful exercise of protected free speech and other political activity. However, in Trump’s case these concerns are somewhat lessened because he’s a billionaire and because of the enormous size of his litigation financial war chest and the army of lawyers whom he’s been able to hire. See, David Nadelle, “Trump’s Donor Money Just Plummeted by $101 Million…” GoBankingRates, https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/politicians/trump-donor-money-plummeted-millions-what-happens-election-funds-negative/. Moreover, given Trump’s history, his propensity to use social media and seek the limelight, it is highly questionable whether anything can actually inhibit or deter him from expressing himself or campaigning.
And finally, it must be noted that the charges against Trump are of the most serious kind in a democracy such as the United States. Many say with some justification, that taken together, they amount to charges of an attempted coup d etat against the government of the United States because Trump’s actions sought to keep Trump in office and stop the lawful transfer of power to the newly elected Biden Administration. The situation in fact, had become extremely dangerous. The Capitol building was stormed by an angry mob of Trump supporters. Trump did nothing to defend Congressional membership from the Trump supporting mob as Congressmen went about the vitally important business certifying the results of the 2020 election. In fact, many say that Trump’s actions actually encouraged the riot. Property was damaged. Defending police officers were attacked. Injuries were sustained and, in fact, several people lost their lives. Clearly, charges of such magnitude require that DOJ take the most decisive actions possible to defend the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and democracy itself. In short, because of the extreme gravity of the situation DOJ cannot be expected to sit on its hands. In fact, it can be strongly argued that DOJ has not acted aggressively enough regarding the events surrounding Trump and January 6th because of the excessive delay in bringing charges against Trump in the first place.
[It should also be noted that it appears that Trump has paid for the legal expenses of at least some of his co-defendants, and for those who cannot afford an attorney they can get the federal and/or state government to pay for same by the retention of court-appointed legal counsel. Finally, and ironically enough, with every indictment the amount of funds Trump’s political action committees are able to raise increases substantially.]
TUNES Footnote
The tune is posted by heavenlyblueorange on Youtube. Ann Margaret is the actress on tune called “Try It” by the Standells.