In my view, it’s important to understand that the Trump “show” trial in NYC is not just about Trump’s guilt or innocence of the crimes for which he is on trial. In a sense, we are all on trial. If the government can prosecute Trump in the manner in which this trial is being conducted it can do so to any of us. I’ll explain below.
Most of us realize that the charges are “trumped up,” (pun intended). Most of us realize that the main purpose of the trial is to keep Trump bottled up in the courtroom to hinder his ability to campaign. It is voter suppression of the highest order. If he is convicted and imprisoned that would be the frosting on the cake for the Dems. More on that later.
In following the pretrial proceedings, I feel like a fell asleep and woke up in Soviet Russia circa 1930. “Show trials” with a predetermined outcome were common in that era, and they still are in totalitarian regimes all over the world. Lavrenty Beria, the most notorious and most ruthless head of Russia’s secret police under Joseph Stalin, no slouch himself when it came to ruthlessness, was fond of saying “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” That catchy statement epitomized the manner in which Stalin and Beria operated. In my opinion Alvin Bragg, the NYC DA, is a “Beria-wannabe,” even though he probably doesn’t have the foggiest notion of who Beria was.
Why do I say that? Bragg campaigned on a promise to “get Trump.” (Show me the man.) He has spent his entire tenure as DA hunting for a crime to prosecute, all the while ignoring real crimes in NYC. The best “crime” he could find was an eight-year-old misdemeanor state crime that had already exceeded the statute of limitations. No matter. Somehow, Bragg managed to bootstrap it into a felonious federal crime. (I’ll show you the crime.) That would have been a neat magic trick worthy of Harry Houdini if it weren’t of highly questionable legality.
It is important to note that both Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, and the Justice Department, neither of which is a fan of Trump’s by the way, had declined to prosecute for various reasons. But that has not deterred Bragg from fulfilling his campaign promise. He is akin to the fictitious Ahab pursuing the big white whale in Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick.
I don’t want to get embroiled in a debate on the merits of the case, or whether or not Trump is guilty or innocent. There is a bigger, more serious issue in play here.
Of course, I am not an attorney, and I will not pretend to be one. Put aside the fact that you may hate Trump personally. That is irrelevant. Under that pesky document known as the Constitution everyone is entitled to a fair trial regardless of the crime. Certain aspects of this case bother me, and they should bother you as well. Most independent observers realize that they are depriving Trump of a fair trial and the voters to decide our next president in a free and fair election. For example:
- The case is primarily about politics, which is just plain wrong. That is not how our legal system is supposed to work. The timing of the trial during an election campaign is highly suspect.
- The venue is NYC which is as “blue” as it gets. In 2020 Trump got some 15% of the vote there. Most New Yorkers hate Trump for whatever reason. It is highly doubtful that he can get a fair-minded jury out of that pool. In point of fact, there have already been suspicions regarding the objectivity of a few of the jurors.
- Juan Merchan, the judge on the case, is clearly biased. He is an admitted Trump-hater. It appears he was selected for that very reason. Moreover, his daughter is a senior executive at a law firm with close ties to Joe Biden and other high-level Dems. Due to that clear conflict, he should have recused himself.
- Merchan has required Trump to be in court physically every day. This requirement could have and should have been waived. The obvious ramification of this ruling is to preclude Trump from campaigning.
- Merchan has issued a gag order against Trump, but not against any other parties including the prosecution and potential witnesses. This has likely tainted the jury pool, the chosen jurors and public opinion.
Conclusion
The state’s obvious goal is to deny Trump a fair trial, secure a wrongful conviction, hinder his campaigning, and steal the upcoming election. This is a new form of voter suppression. As I said, this is an attempt to deprive the public from determining our next president. A few fair-minded commentators such as Alan Dershowitz and Stephen A. Smith, lifetime Dems and not Trump supporters, have criticized this strategy. They want to see the Dems beat him fair and square, not this way. Furthermore, many legal scholars, such as Dershowitz and Greg Jarrett have opined that any conviction would likely be overturned on appeal after the election. Bragg and his cohorts won’t care. They probably even expect a reversal. They probably know that Trump’s not guilty of the crime for which he is on trial. But at that point, the damage will have been done.
A “show trial” such as this is not supposed to happen in the US. As I said above, “show trials” have long been a characteristic of countries ruled by dictators. In the US we have the protection of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution mandates that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Trump’s rights have been trampled. He has already been tried and convicted by the state and the media. The infamous Salem Witch Trials of the 17th century were more equitable than this trial.
To their credit most voters realize this, especially those who have been bullied by the authorities (e.g. “driving while Black”). They see right through this strategy. Consequently, the Dems’ strategy has backfired. The polls show Trump is more popular than ever. For example, according to The Hill and Emerson College national polls Trump is ahead of Biden by three points. More importantly Trump is maintaining small margins in most of the swing states that will really decide the election. Once again, the average voter is showing we are not as dumb as the so-called elites think we are.
In the beginning I said there was a bigger issue here than just this trial. The issue is if the state can prosecute Trump just because it doesn’t agree with his politics, if it can trample on his constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, it can do so to anyone. Even if the accused is innocent, it costs a substantial amount of money to defend oneself, and very few of us have the financial resources that Trump has. As I said, in a sense we are all on trial here.
We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob 