While it is customary to offer hearty congratulations upon achieving long-sought after goals, kudos are not deserved this year when it comes to assessing the adherence to the rule of law in America. In fact, if there were formal graduation ceremonies at this particular time, there would be no prescribed turning of mortarboard tassels signifying accomplishment. Rather, given what we have just witnessed coming out of the Manhattan Criminal Court, it would be more appropriate for victorious partisans to set off on their jubilant celebrations by overturning police cars and lighting fires to established businesses.

However, the euphoria and unbridled glee expressed 24/7 by NeverTrumpers after the decisions were handed down may actually become an inflection point toward a return to law and order. In what must be a surprise to leftists throughout the land, a political backlash has started to emerge. Interviews of the general public, including self-identified liberal voters (along with the non-aligned) and even Democrat lawyers, recognize that this trial and the outcome was weighted heavily on the states’ political leanings instead of the rule of law and use of objective judicial procedures.

After the verdicts were announced, it immediately brought to mind a quotation of Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police force, the NKVD. He once remarked “show me the man, I will show you the crime.” To many, Beria’s cutthroat methods are being echoed in the current state of American jurisprudence as we are witnessing at firsthand shades of the 1930s/1940s Soviet legal system. In that era, the Communist procedures were (and still are) purely based on the pursuit and maintenance of political power, not the impartial administration of justice.

Nonetheless, there are hopes that at least this blatant example of New York judicial malfeasance can be overturned. Several esteemed legal scholars are unequivocal in stating that there are numerous grounds for a successful Trump appeal. For example, the 14th Amendment questions surrounding the lack of due process during these proceedings should immediately rise to the top of the appeal. Also, a motion for a change of venue to a more politically balanced jurisdiction (the jury pool was drawn from an area where more than 75% voted for Biden in 2020) was denied. Further, a major premise of the district attorney’s case was that President Trump falsified documents to enhance his New York election prospects in 2016. The document, a legal Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), was signed in 2017, well after the election had taken place. There are other foundations for appeal regarding the porn star witness Stormy Daniels; her testimony was characterized as extremely prejudicial, as it sought to appeal to emotions of the jury and was unrelated to the post-election execution of the legal NDA. Judge Merchan, who presided over this case, also put extremely strict limitations on a proposed defense witness who was to testify that President Trump did not violate any federal election laws, thus emasculating his sworn evidence. Additionally, it will likely be argued that since this case concerned a federal election, New York State voting laws could not be applied. Another argument bound to come up during appeal is the judge’s misconduct in gagging President Trump from speaking publicly about this trial. Finally, the District Attorney’s swing-for-the-fences maneuver of combining two expired misdemeanors to create a felony is surely to be fertile ground for dispute.

Although the components of this case are the most recent illustrative examples of the collapse of American legal underpinnings, there are various other contemporary instances being reported across America that are starting to influence attitudes.

A few examples include, but are not limited to felony assaults on police officers being downgraded to misdemeanors in some jurisdictions, allowing assailants to escape more serious charges without posting any bail. It has been noted that the murder rates in Chicago exceed the combined combat fatalities in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet there is no outcry when these outrageous statistics are reported. In many jurisdictions, retail shoplifting amounting to less than $950 or $1,000 worth of goods are now ignored by city or county attorneys. In some states, the charges of criminal trespass on private property have been replaced by the soothing euphemism of “squatting” violations. Hordes of illegal immigrants swarm both the southern and northern borders, smuggling in enough fentanyl to kill every person here, while other illegals enable the sale of children into sex slavery or for forced agricultural labor.

When law and order are no longer a deterrent, when cause and effect have no impact, we experience a firsthand a breakdown of society; daily life, particularly in the major metropolitan areas, descends into chaos and the law-of-the-jungle rules.

All these actions reflecting blatant disregard and abuse of U.S. laws are being noticed by concerned citizens. And these instances are having a pronounced, cumulative effect on the majority of the voting populace. As a result, surveys indicate that we are losing confidence, and therefore respect, in the American legal system.

The hope is that the Trump kangaroo court results may finally be the catalyst for a sea change of attitudes about American jurisprudence amongst voters and that the legal pendulum will swing back to bring about positive changes.

Marc E. Zimmerman is a former legislative assistant to a Member of the U.S. Congress.

Image: Tim Evanson via Wikipedia