The former president refers to the four prosecutions he faces as “witch hunts” motivated by partisanship and part of a nefarious scheme to keep him from returning to the White House. opined the editorial board of The New York Times. Donald Trump has repeated this narrative even though the prosecutions have been brought by different prosecutors around the country, and even though different grand juries, each composed of a random selection of regular citizens in different states, handed up indictments that now total 88 felony charges against him.
In the weeks leading up to the start of this trial, Mr.
Trump has argued, dishonestly, that the judge and the prosecutor have treated
him unfairly, and that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial in
Manhattan because New Yorkers are biased against him. But the opening days of
the trial, devoted to jury selection, have already demonstrated the great care
and respect with which everyone involved in the trial, except for Mr. Trump,
has treated the process. Joshua Steinglass, a member of the office of the
Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told potential jurors on Tuesday that
the case “has nothing to do with personal politics.”
“We don’t suggest you need to have been living under a rock
for the last eight years, or the last 30 years,” he said. “We don’t expect you not to have heard about this, or
not to have discussed this case with friends. What we do need is for you to
keep an open mind.”
Dozens of potential jurors took those instructions seriously
and admitted they could not be impartial. One man was excused from service after telling the
judge that it was “going to be hard for me to be impartial,” since many of his
family members and friends were Republicans. Justice Juan Merchan, the judge
overseeing the trial, excused him, as other potential jurors stepped up. So
far, seven jurors have been seated. At least two potential jurors were
dismissed by the judge because of social media posts.
If anything, Justice Merchan has exhibited an extra degree of
tolerance for Mr. Trump’s strategy of systematically attacking the legitimacy
of the courts and court officials through repeated verbal outbursts and
countless legal motions and other attempts to delay his trials. In the New York
case, Mr. Trump received a short
extension last month when federal prosecutors found a tranche of
documents that had not been turned over to the defense team. In the week before
the start of the trial, he filed three
emergency appeals in three days, as The Times reported, including a civil
action against the judge, which were quickly rejected by an appeals court.
The fact that he was able to have each of these motions
fully considered is evidence of the justice system operating as it should, with
deliberation and due process. Especially in criminal prosecutions, courts take
the legal rights of litigants very seriously, to ensure that defendants receive
fair trials. An appeals court is still considering Mr. Trump’s request to throw
out a gag order that prevents him from verbally attacking witnesses,
prosecutors or the judge’s family, but it will not delay the trial before the
ruling. (Mr. Trump is not prevented from publicly criticizing the judge.)
In the other criminal cases against him, Mr. Trump has also
been able to take full advantage of every legal protection available to him as
a defendant.
He appealed his
federal prosecution related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol on the
grounds that he enjoys absolute immunity for actions he took as president. This
argument has been rejected by every judge to consider it. Still, the Supreme
Court agreed
to hear the appeal later this month, delaying the start of his trial
in that case indefinitely, and possibly until after the election. While the
Supreme Court weighs his immunity claim, the trial judge in the federal Jan. 6
case, Tanya Chutkan, put
the proceedings on hold. In the other federal prosecution, on charges of
illegally withholding highly classified national-security documents, Mr. Trump
has had numerous favorable rulings from the judge handling that case.
The election-interference case out of Georgia was delayed by
an extensive hearing on a possible conflict of interest for the lead
prosecutor, Fani Willis, who had been in a romantic relationship with Nathan
Wade, an outside prosecutor she hired to lead the case. After taking testimony from
a series of witnesses, the judge decided Ms. Willis could remain on the case,
but not with Mr. Wade. (Mr. Wade ultimately withdrew.) Mr. Trump appealed that
decision, which the Georgia Court of Appeals is now considering.
The ability to file such appeals, successful or not, is
essential to how the law functions in the United States. Despite having
benefited from its protections, to Mr. Trump, the rule of law is nothing more
than an obstacle to be overcome, an instrument of power to use at will.
Mr. Trump’s vision of an American legal system that protects
his interests goes beyond his trial, of course, and extends in particular to
the Justice Department. He has been
explicit about his desire, if elected in November, to bring the
Justice Department more fully under his control, to use it to protect his
friends and, more important, punish his enemies. As president, Mr. Trump had
an unparalleled record of
abusing presidential pardons, and if he is re-elected, he appears likely to
order the Justice Department to drop the criminal cases against him or to try
to pardon himself for potential crimes. To Mr. Trump, independent prosecutors
and Justice Department officials are precisely the problem. They will say no to
him when he wants to do things that are illegal or unconstitutional, choosing
to be faithful to the Constitution rather than to him. This Mr. Trump cannot
abide.
Mr. Trump has said he intends to find a prosecutor to “go
after” Mr. Biden and his family, suggesting that he intends to pursue
prosecution with little regard to evidence or facts. According to The Washington Post, he also wants to investigate figures
in his administration whom he perceives as being disloyal to him, including
John Kelly, his former chief of staff; William Barr, his former attorney
general; and Gen. Mark Milley, the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(Mr. Trump has separately suggested General Milley should be executed for treason.)
As Mr. Kelly told The Post, “There is no question in my mind
he is going to go after people that have turned on him.”
Mr. Trump has also repeatedly said that his prosecution is
like no other. In fact, there are numerous examples of politicians, of both
parties, who faced prosecution, and in some cases were convicted, during their
candidacies. The former Texas governor Rick Perry, a Republican, ran for
president in 2016 while under indictment for abuse of power. (Those charges
were later dismissed.) Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey, was
indicted on federal bribery charges, and may run for re-election as an
independent.
The former president is singular in one respect: As much as
he accuses others of warping the justice system, he is the one who consistently
demeans and disparages the role of the courts and the exercise of due process.
The leaders of the Republican Party, echoing the views of Mr. Trump’s fervent
base of followers, have fallen in line behind him, indicating that they will
continue to support his candidacy even if he is a convicted felon.
To read more CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment