And so the combined, international Left, fighting to ‘get Trump at any cost’, has added another spectacle to their ignominious playbook. Yesterday a NY District attorney indicted Mr Trump on 34 ‘counts’. No, he ain’t in prison, he was permitted to go home because there’s no reason to fear that he’ll flee.

Unsurprisingly, our beloved MSM are surpassing themselves in producing smirking headlines. They always knew that ‘Orange Man Bad’, and now they can ‘prove’ it. Here’s the BBC’s compilation: “Newspaper headlines: ‘Trump in the dock’ and ‘our new Queen’” (link). You have to hand it to ‘staff’: placing The Times with their print edition’s headline “Trump in the dock” right at the top of the page is their not so subtle nudge towards what we peasants are supposed to think.

The online editions’ headlines are in the same gloating vein. You can see them for yourselves. There are two early opinion pieces. The Times’ Gerald Baker asks innocently “Is Trump’s arrest a triumph of justice or political persecution?”  in order to celebrate the indictment because it shows that ‘nobody is above the law’, here in ‘Teh West’. After all, he writes, who could imagine Mr Xi Ping to submit to such ‘event’ … He then comes out with:

“But Trump is no innocent bystander. His refusal to accept the 2020 election result and his role in instigating the January 6 riot are still the subject of other looming potential prosecutions.” (link, paywalled)

Well, that answers the question he asked in the headline, doesn’t it! The DT’s ‘US correspondent’ has dug out some ‘law expert’ who affirms the ‘Orange Man Bad’ meme. For the record:

““These are felony charges,” Kami Chavis, director of the William & Mary Centre for Criminal Justice Policy and Reform, told The Telegraph. “In the United States any criminal charges, or acts that subject you to a loss of your liberty is a serious charge. […] Whether a judge would jail Mr Trump if convicted was “another story”. Conviction would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but Prof Chavis believed prosecutors would not have pressed serious charges unless he was confident of a conviction.” (paywalled link)

It’s the easy way out for fence sitters: there was an indictment and because there’s no smoke without a fire, there must be something in it. Let’s also mention the reports of Trump’s speech at Mar-a-Lago which over here insinuates an attitude of ‘how dare he even speak!’. 

In contrast, here’s a report in PJ Media, quoting Mr Trump and providing a detail which our own MSM are keeping quiet about (all emphases are mine):

“He [Trump] then recalled how Democrats spied on his campaign and launched fraudulent investigations against him, including the Russian collusion investigation and two partisan impeachment trials. He also accused the FBI and DOJ of relentlessly pursuing Republicans, while protecting Hunter Biden. “And now this massive election interference at a scale never seen before in our country,” he continued. “Beginning with the radical left to George Soros-backed prosecutor Alvin Bragg of New York, who campaigned on the fact that he would get President Trump, ‘I gotta get him. I’m gonna get him.’” (link, paywalled)

There is a devastating analysis of this legal spectacle in the conservative ‘National Review’. It is by Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant US Attorney. The ‘National Review’ is a conservative publication and not specifically Trump-supporting. Furthermore, Mr McCarthy is a formidable lawyer. He doesn’t mince  words.

“Bragg’s ‘Indictment’ Even Fails as an Indictment” is the headline of his analysis from which I’ll quote at length. No, don’t ask why our ‘US Correspondents’ were apparently  unaware of this article. Quoting lefty ‘law professors’ instead shows why … The first paragraphs are already devastating – for the NY district attorney and his ‘case’:

“What a disgrace. It’s always possible to be surprised. The indictment brought by Manhattan’s elected Democratic district attorney Alvin Bragg against Donald Trump is even worse than I’d imagined. Bragg’s indictment fails to state a crime. Not once . . . but 34 times. On that ground alone, the case should be dismissed — before one ever gets to the facts that the statute of limitations has lapsed and that Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law (if that’s what he’s trying to do, which remains murky). Bragg’s indictment charges 34 counts, just as we said it would, based on media reporting that clearly came from illegal leaks of grand-jury information — a crime, you can be sure, that goes in the overflowing bucket of serious offenses that Bragg refuses to prosecute. The 34 counts are arrived at by taking what is a single course of conduct and absurdly slicing it into parts, each one of which is charged as a separate felony carrying its own potential four-year prison term.” (link, paywalled)

Mr McCarthy is absolutely scathing about the Bragg Indictment, pointing out that 

“The worst due-process abuse of Bragg’s indictment, however, is that . . . it’s not an indictment. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees that Americans may not be accused of a serious crime — essentially, a felony — absent an indictment approved by a grand jury. The indictment has two purposes. First, it must put the defendant on notice of exactly what crime has been charged so that he may prepare his defense. Second, the indictment sets the parameters for the defendant’s closely related right to double-jeopardy protection, also set forth in the Fifth Amendment. That is, by stating the crime charged, the indictment enables the defendant to claim a double-jeopardy violation if the prosecutor attempts to try him a second time on the same offense. Here, the indictment fails to say what the crime is.” (link, paywalled)

There’s more:

“Nowhere in the indictment does the grand jury specify what other crime Trump fraudulently endeavored to commit or conceal by falsifying his records. That is an inexcusable failure of notice. […] Moreover, the document Bragg has the temerity to label his “statement of facts,” filed with the court in tandem with the no-notice indictment, is itself a work of fiction. He alleges that Trump falsified his records to conceal “damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.” But every one of the 34 acts that Bragg charges as felonies happened after the 2016 election — from February through December 2017.” (link, paywalled)

Rounding up, Mr McCarthy really lets rip. Remember that he is only looking at the legal aspects of this indictment:

“Bragg’s problem is that it is not a crime to pay people for their silence: Nondisclosure arrangements are not just legal, they are a staple of the civil-justice system. The nondisclosure arrangements are the only relevant events in the case that occurred before the 2016 election. They are not crimes, but Bragg is hellbent on accusing Trump of crimes, so he is left to suggest — because he cannot prove — that Trump skirted campaign-finance laws. Put aside, though, that Bragg does not have the nerve to actually charge the federal crimes he is coyly intimating. To show how moronic this is, let’s pretend that these hush-money deals were in-kind campaign expenditures, that Trump decided to regard them as such, and that Trump’s campaign disclosed them to the Federal Election Commission as Bragg’s fantasy version of the law mandated. Even if all that were true, the law would not have required the Trump campaign to disclose the expenditures until the next reporting period after they occurred, sometime months into 2017. That is, such disclosures would not possibly have influenced the 2016 election. What a disgrace.” (link, paywalled)

I’ve quoted Mr McCarthy’s analysis at such length because his analysis needs to be kept for the record, especially since our MSM, even the ‘US Correspondents’ are neither lawyers nor will they look at, never mind quote this devastating legal analysis. Instead they quote some lefty professor or warble about ‘nobody is above the Law’. 

That’s all I have for today. If nobody is above the law then those who represent ‘Teh Law’ must themselves be above suspicion and not political campaigners ‘bought’ by those with a political agenda. Have a good day.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email