The Supreme Court ruling, the question of Colorado's Supreme Court finding that in the civil trial, Trump did commit insurrection , was left untouched. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html It only focused on whether one state could determine the outcome should be a federal matter with Congress writing a law. Splitting hairs in definitions are often the meat and potatoes of prosecutions and courtroom haggling but they also are a weapon of political arguments. One question that deserved attention on a private Facebook group that interfaces the many sides of political discussion was if why the January 6 mob and even Jack Smith's indictment of Trump who were charged with a crime were not charged with insurrection, but interfering with an official process or vandalism or other charges. So the left was wrong, it follows, to call Trump an insurrectionist, and therefore he is not guilty of a crime that could, if found guilty, put him in jail or some other penalty like home detention or less. What they overlook, is that there are other criminal statutes involved easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which could land him in jail or other punishments. Outside the courtrooms, both sides can still be right at the same time: Trump is and is not an insurrectionist. It is an opinion to shape other opinions, but it is not yet a legal finding with one exception. Colorado's state justice system from lower to highest court did not disagree with that part of a civil suit brought by Republicans and independents attempting to keep Trump off the ballot. Update: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/03/04/trump-can-stay-on-colorado-ballot-supreme-court-rules/? In their ruling, the court did not rule not on the substance of whether Trump had committed an insurrection but on the power of a state to enforce the rule. It is a federal matter that needs legislation from Congress to clarify how to execute the removal and when under the 14th Amendment. This was not a surprise and the issue is now clarified. Trump's name was never taken off the Colorado ballot nor will it be because the Colorado Secretary of State said she would abide with the SCOTUS ruling. The insurrection issue was a civil finding that Trump did participate in the Colorado case. SCOTUS did not touch that. The key decision remaining is the Coourt ruling on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution. This cannot be avoided. It is key to the preservation of democracy. The way SCOTUS set up its approach left the room it appears that Trump could have immunity from "some" acts on the perimeter. That would be a disaster if the Court ruled Trump had some protection because of immunity; he would be above the law exempted by a definition that split hairs. Either he is immune or he is not. There should be no loopholes. Politically, Biden's team would rather take on Trump than Haley, so it is becoming even clearer it will be an oldie but goodie v an oldie but dangerous and scary..
The only body so far to rule on the term insurrection after a trial and hearing evidence in a court of law found that an insurrection had occurred was the Colorado case, a civil suit to keep Trump off a ballot per the 14th Amendment.. In appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court. the state supreme court agreed on whether there was an insurrection and Trump either led it or provided aid and comfort, but it will probably fail in the appeal to Trump's biased Supreme Court on a totally unrelated issue that such interpretations and enforcement should be enforced at the federal level, not at the state level. We will soon get their ruling. The strongest argument made by the Trump team is that one state should not determine what other states rule in an election process and qualifications for president. Supreme Courts usually do not rule on whether the facts were faulty, but how the theory that sets the precedent of how the state acted affected the rest of the other states or other individuals or was or not relevant to the laws as written, were unconstitutional, and /or were in harmony with precedents set by other court rulings.
From a reply to the question raised by a Trump supporter on the private Facebook site is a little more complex and more in the weeds, but a good question was raised that required serious consideration. :Was there an insurrection or not and can the participants in January 6 be called insurrectionists and was that an insurrection or just a riot. Both being a riot and an insurrection could also be true. The riot was the weapon used as part of the insurrection plot. Until it is litigated in court, both sides can give their opinions on media with some reasons. It has been litigated only once, in Colorado, in the attempt to DQ Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment provisions. if the Supreme Court does not address that issue per se, those claiming Jan. 6 was an insurrection can continue to do so with even stronger justification. Jack Smith's January 6 case, if held before the November elections, could make the question unanswered also and he is not using the word insurrection, either. He is charging Trump with" conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury ..." (Google summary)
From my FB posting today. Treason can only be charged in wartime. Insurrection is the non-wartime equivalent. The mob on January 6 was summoned to Washington by Trump or his lieutenants in on the conspiracy / for a wild time and were the tool and a weapon of masterminds of overturning the 2020 election. They were only part of the scheme and were connected to the false elector scheme to force or scare or threaten the VP to not certify the election contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Whatever you split hairs on definitions, the whole scheme and the tools have "done wrong" and attempted to defy the Constitution. The victim in this was the official process that would have resulted in stealing the election from those who were in both the popular vote majority and the electoral college when the leader of this knew it was a lie about enough fraud committed. The Jack Smith testimony, a criminal process, will dwell heavily on all those around Trump that he lost and Trump's intent was to intentionally commit the criminal deed. . Just because prosecutors did not charge the militia heads with insurrection, does not mean that they did not commit it but that to achieve the goal, they may choose to prosecute the prime mover,s or the head of the snake...in this case Donald Trump. . Look at it as in mafia prosecutions that begin with charging the guy who strangled someone with murder, but not the head of the mafia with the murder who orchestrated the conspiracy. They used other legal tools to put the head of the crime family behind bars to achieve the goal of breaking up the crime family's criminal acts. Prosecutors have a choice of picking their battles and picking the easiest charges to make and they either go after the head of the snake as Jack Smith chose to do in his charges re: January 6 levied against one perp, Trump, or they go after all those who were part of the conspiracy to commit an insurrection as the RICO case in Georgia is attempting.. Just because the rioters were not charged with insurrection does not mean they did not commit insurrection and other prosecution tools addressed exact acts, vandalism, and interfering with an official government procedure. The only body so far to rule on the term insurrection after a trial and hearing evidence in a court of law found that an insurrection had occurred was the Colorado case. In appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, but it will probably fail in Trump's biased Supreme Court on a totally unrelated issue that it should be enforced at the federal level, not at the state level. One state should not determine what other states rule in the case. Supreme Courts do not rule on whether the facts were faulty, but how the theory that sets the precedent of how the state acted that affected the rest of the states ruled on the facts.
Prosecutorial discretion in white-collar crimes can indeed be motivated by political considerations, but it is more likely to be motivated by whether prosecutors have a near certainty of a win in court (there is more than smoke; there is fire) and whether the issue affects a large number of potential and real victims unfairly treated and are the victims. The worst example possible of abuse and weaponization of a prosecutor's office that deviates from any of this is Trump's promise to prosecute his political enemies not loyal to him as he seeks revenge and retribution regardless of the merits, the rule of law, evidence, or impact on anyone except himself and his political power. The threat alone of prosecution is an effective tool of governing by fear of repercussions from not being loyal to the dear leader. That Trump whines he is the victim of that kind of prosecution is his way of denying any public evidence to the contrary, indictments by a grand jury (whose job is to see if there is fire, not just smoke), or investigative reports. If he thinks he will lose in court, he will deny justice, delay, delay, delay until he can pardon himself when he regains the Oval Office. The more you see him delay, delay, delay, the more he understands he would lose in a court of law if the trial was ever held. In its way, it is his admission of guilt. Facts count in courts, if not in social or Trump-friendly cable channels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A personal note: I am not an attorney, but I did spend 7 years as director of an investigative and prosecution unit in the district attorney's office on consumer fraud and white-collar crime that had both criminal and civil authority. Prosecutors assigned to the unit made the decisions about whether or whether or not to pursue a case or not and why. Prosecutorial discretion in white-collar crimes or civil frauds depended upon the kind of proof and whether there was likely a chance prosecutors would win in court and if the law was broken that had had many victims. It also would serve as a warning to other wannabe fraudsters not to even try these practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment