Reblogged:Dershowitz on the Hush Money Trial

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Over at Capitalism Magazine is a piece by Alan Dershowitz which explains (a) how the Trump hush money trial is a cynical mockery of the judicial system, and (b) why everyone, regardless of where they stand on Trump, should be alarmed.

I am no fan of Trump, but have long suspected that this trial was an abuse of the legal system by the Democrats. The below makes it plain that I was right:

Stormy Daniels (Image by Glenn Francis, via Wikimedia Commons, license.)

The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanour -- falsifying business records -- which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.

This would be an outrage on its own, but in the context of Democrat foot-dragging on the three legitimate reasons to prosecute Trump -- his role in the civil unrest of January 6, 2021; his attempt to interfere in Georgia's election; and his unlawful possession of national security information -- there should be no doubt that, like Trump, they are serious only about getting elected, and not about the good of this country.

And the Democrats are being obviously short-sighted:

Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat.

There is more, specifically pertaining to how the trial is likely to play out: Trump, who may well be convicted of a felony by this blue-state jury, seems likely to be exonerated on appeal, but only after Election Day.

Notably, Trump is a horrible politician and has adopted so many of the left's tactics and policies. There is poetic justice in this last fact, but that is cold comfort indeed when one thinks past the next election.

Today, a power-lusting petty criminal is being crucified; tomorrow, it could be a good man and a genuine patriot.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[EC]

8 hours ago, Gus Van Horn blog said:

 

Today, a power-lusting petty criminal is being crucified; tomorrow, it could be a good man and a genuine patriot.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Not "tomorrow", things like this are happening to good patriotic Americans like myself right now, but I there is a very good chance that this is possibly the purpose of this extremely large criminal organization running the streets of the Midwest destroying American citizen's lives like my own and why reaching out to every federal agency to stop this mass criminal activity is constantly met with silence, more crimes committed against myself, and a smear campaign. 

[Boydstun]

On 5/22/2024 at 8:50 AM, Gus Van Horn blog said:

Over at Capitalism Magazine is a piece by Alan Dershowitz which explains (a) how the Trump hush money trial is a cynical mockery of the judicial system, and (b) why everyone, regardless of where they stand on Trump, should be alarmed.

I am no fan of Trump, but have long suspected that this trial was an abuse of the legal system by the Democrats. The below makes it plain that I was right:

The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanour -- falsifying business records -- which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.

This would be an outrage on its own, but in the context of Democrat foot-dragging on the three legitimate reasons to prosecute Trump -- his role in the civil unrest of January 6, 2021; his attempt to interfere in Georgia's election; and his unlawful possession of national security information -- there should be no doubt that, like Trump, they are serious only about getting elected, and not about the good of this country.

. . .
-- CAV

Link to Original

The idea that one political party or the other is running the judiciary in this country, with citation of law as only a pretense, is baloney. I'd bet a Coke that when the US Supreme Court gives its decision on Presidential immunity (on crimes in office) after the President's term, it will NOT give blanket immunity, notwithstanding the majority of Justices being Republican and Trump being a Republican (at least officially a Republican).

It was not Democratic Senators who failed to convict Trump in the impeachment over his role in January 6 and the lead-up to it, but Republican Senators. And it is mainly due to good defense attorneys that the other three cases against Trump have been delayed—AD should pat them on the back.

Federal election felony in the New York case going to the jury next Tuesday is only one of three felonies in view, the other two are New York felonies, and a juror will be able to convict Trump provided he or she judges beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts match the elements of the crime in view of at least one of the three felonies. 

Turning to OUR upcoming decision, a vote for Trump is a vote for undermining in fact the US Constitution and the democratic republic it makes stand with public support. Hordes of authoritarian haters in fact of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights have flocked to the support of Trump for a second term. Don't be among that movement against equal protection under the law for all and government by the people. At least abstain. Oppose also any Republican candidate who is against legal abortions or contraceptives. I know the Democrats are especially terrible in their indifference to budgets in the red and in the cause of inflation, but for now even that is the lesser failing.

I don't know if I'll vote for a presidential candidate, but I'm not voting for Trump, and I urge you also to not vote for him.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Boydstun

[DavidOdden]

The main reason why I think that is a safe bet is that “blanket immunity” is not a question raised in his appeal, and it is unlikely that the court will decide sua sponte that US (former) presidents are etermally immune from all prosecution. I do expect that SCOTUS will not accept the lower court conclusion that “Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist at all”.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, plain and simple. One is free to conjecture about the “deeper meaning” of an individual’s act of voting for Trump. For example, a vote for Trump might “really” be a vote against Harris whom I consider to be a more-dangerous potential POTUS than Biden. In my state, it is a purely symbolic act because all electoral votes will go to a non-Trump candidate (our electors tend to go off the rails and vote contrary to state law). Apart from an individual’s personal motivation for some choice (which remains private), there is also the social consequence of the anonymized choice, for example a choice could increase the count for one candidate, or decrease the choice for a different candidate, and then we will see reports in the media to the effect that “Trump lost / gained votes {statewide / nationally}”, by comparison to 2016 and 2020. In a few days we will know who the LP candidate will be, for the moment I assume it will be Chase Oliver, so the credible choices are Biden, Trump, Oliver, and abstention. In terms of actual support, I would prefer “none of the above” or Chase Oliver over the two probable-winners. In terms of actual consequences, at least for me, voting is entirely inconsequential because Biden gets the electors here. I accept that Trump is a greater train-wreck w.r.t. rule of law, but I do not have any faith in Biden’s ability to continue acting as POTUS for another 4 years. I suppose this could be an opportunity to see to what extent the “shadow government” could keep things running for the remainder of his term.

[Boydstun]

Which lower court? The DC appelate?

[DavidOdden]

As argued by the defense, both the district court and the circuit court panel, for example here.

[Boydstun]

I had looked under III. Executive Immunity in this opinion earlier, but I could not find “Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist at all”. Or did you mean that as an inference from other things in the opinion?

[DavidOdden]

I meant that as a quote, contained here. The summary statement is supported here in the district court opinion which says “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution”; see the counter-arguments here, for example from Marbury v. Madison a President’s official acts “can never be examinable by the courts”.