Donald Trump was “Joe Brinkmaned”

I watched the TV pundits on several channels—some gleefully celebrating, discuss the Trump jury verdict in real time. For me there was nothing surprising in either the verdicts or the demeanor and professionalism of many reporting the news.

Both conservative and progressive legal commentary provided evidence that their side was correct. Johnathan Turley or Rachel Madow presented very different opinions about where the process would take us on appeal and politically regarding the Presidential Election. Turley provided legal analysis. Maddow fighting back tears of joy provided a Kantian puddle of emotional goo.

Both sides talked about “the respect for the law and a respect for our legal system” but what does that mean? Each side seems to hold their own opinion.

Historically for a citizen who is not a lawyer like me, it means I believe, a respect for the underpinnings, the moral and ethical principles based on Biblical and Natural Law theory, Common Law tradition and pedagogy as taught and practiced for hundreds of years, that have been incorporated over our history into a “body of process” known as “the law”. But what good is tradition and dogma if those practicing don’t subscribe to a common moral predict? Nazi Germany had laws and courts and so did the Bolsheviks, Robespierre, Mao and Pol Pot. They had courts in the “Jim Crow South”. The moral underpinnings in those situations are very different than what heretofore we as a nation have assumed to be what is the basis of our own legal system. How can anyone who doesn’t share in those moral underpinnings, begin to “uphold” our laws? Using the courts and the legal system to create a political advantage or social chaos is not new, but it is not part of our “American Tradition”

When we see prosecutors, reverse engineer a legal theory or statute, to apply in a unique way to a political opponent, this looks to common everyday people who do believe in the underlying moral predicates of our legal system, to be at least unfair. We find it difficult to “respect the system” when the people trusted with making the system work don’t respect the system. A retired Federal Judge who is a friend of mine once told me “that the more hoops one has to jump through to make a law or theory work, the more likely it is that the law in question does not apply to the particular case”. Lots of hoops had to be jumped through in order to convict Mr. Trump.

That same logic I believe applies to almost any field. In organic chemistry the more steps in an experiment the more likely it is to go wrong. I had a plumber and an engineer once tell me that the more connections, valves, spigots there were in a line carrying a fluid the more likely something would go wrong. “Overengineering” is something practiced by government bureaucrats, academicians, and lawyers and judges who deal in obscure theories not by people who build bridges, design molecules, or fix plumbing leaks.

A Black person in Mississippi in 1890 with a white judge, and an all-white jury, had about as much a chance in that system of justice as DJT had in Manhattan. Ask Atticus Finch. They had a “legal system”, just not moral-ethical people operating within that system.

It was certainly a “home game” for the prosecution and that in and of itself should be pause for concern. Are we now at a place and time in our country when selecting judges and venues in order to “help the prosecution” is more important than giving defendants a fair trial? Sounds more like a military Court Martial than a civilian legal system where the prosecution many times gets to choose the defense attorney! In Idaho even the Davul’s et al had a venue change and a jury pool outside the local of the crime, so that “hearsay” and “on the street” familiarity with the defendant didn’t poison the case. Only admissible evidence please.