Have Trump’s Prosecutors Outsmarted Themselves?

Not much needs to be said about the fanatical effort to put Donald Trump on trial and convict him of various crimes before the 2024 elections. These efforts have almost nothing to do with the normal administration of law and everything to do with an obsessive desire by elites of both parties and the media to destroy a man who is a living attack on their bias, greed, and pursuit of injustice.

I don’t write this as a Trump partisan. I have a lot of criticisms of Trump. One is his abysmal appointments while president including Jeff Sessions (Attorney General), Christopher Wray (FBI), and David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney for Delaware who gave Hunter Biden the sweetheart plea deal (fortunately rejected by the presiding judge).

Trump also failed to fire holdovers such as James Comey and Mark Milley, who did enormous harm to justice and U.S. national security before they finally left their positions.

Trump was a complete failure when it came to building the wall on the Mexican border. He only built about 200 miles out of an estimated 1,800 miles needed. Blaming Nancy Pelosi for not funding it is for whiners. A more determined president would have found the money and told Pelosi to pound sand.

Trump’s handling of the pandemic was juvenile at a time when real leadership was needed. His shouting matches with Andrew Cuomo were an example of two elementary school wimps from Queens fighting in the sandbox instead of getting things done.

Despite Trump’s failures, he had many successful policies that I agree with. Still, I’m a lawyer. I respect the law. My view of Trump as president is irrelevant to my view of how the law is being abused in his case.

There were four indictments handed up from four Democrat prosecutors, two at the state level (New York and Georgia) and two at the federal level. About 100 separate felonies were alleged in the four indictments. Most of them make no sense at all. They are tortured readings of statutes never enforced in the manner applied to Trump (the NY Stormy Daniels case), simple exercises in free speech dressed up as a “racketeering conspiracy” (Georgia), or not supported by evidence (the January 6 case in which Trump actually urged peaceful protest).

Trump is likely to be convicted on some of these charges because the cases are brought in mostly Democratic jurisdictions (New York, Miami, Washington DC, and Atlanta) where a fair trial may be impossible.

Is there a silver lining here at all? There may be one, according to this article.

When you are charged with a crime, you get to defend yourself. That means you can bring forward evidence and also obtain evidence from the prosecutor or any source relevant to the case.

The election fraud claims in 2020 were never properly litigated. The media claim the courts rejected claims of fraud from Trump supporters. That’s not correct. What the courts said was that plaintiffs had no standing or had waited too long to bring the cases or that the cases were political matters best left to legislatures and voters. There was never an opportunity to obtain hard evidence of fraud.

Now there is. Let’s hope Trump keeps a low profile and lets his lawyers do their job. We may finally get to see the actual fraud and grubby dealings that took place on election night 2020.

Corporate leaders and institutional fiduciaries looking to incorporate state of the art predictive analytics to their risk mitigation and strategic analysis should click the link to learn more about Raven Predictive Analytics®.