I wish to make two quick points about last week’s “conviction” of President Trump, because, though important, they have not yet been made with the clarity they deserve:

1. Immediately after the verdict was announced, District Attorney Alvin Bragg could not rush to the podium fast enough to lie to the American people. He said the jury unanimously convicted Trump of falsifying business records to influence the election. Here are his words:

The twelve everyday jurors vowed to make a decision based on the evidence and the law, and the evidence and the law alone. Their deliberations led them to a unanimous conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Donald J. Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.

He knows that is false, because corrupt Judge Merchan instructed that there were at least two other paths to a guilty verdict, having nothing whatsoever to do with the election; on this point it is entirely possible that far from being unanimous on guilt, the jury was unanimous in concluding that he was innocent. Put another way, Bragg knows full well that it is possible not a single juror found Trump was trying to influence the election.

This is one of the many issues ripe for appeal. In the meantime, anyone who hears one of the fascists of the left repeating Bragg’s lie should call out their lie, and point out that they are the ones trying to influence the election by dishonest means.

2. When the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue of presidential immunity, the left predictably howled with feigned indignation. They said the Court was doing so only to assist Trump, because the issue was allegedly “simple” and that the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. had supposedly “masterfully” solved the issue by determining there could never be any immunity no matter what the circumstances. Yet the SCOTUS was required to take up the issue because a) it was a case of first impression, caused by the fact that no other regime in U.S. history has attempted this sort of broad-scale weaponization of the government against its political opponents, b) it has therefore now become an important issue not only with regard to Trump, but as to all presidents in the future, and c) it is indeed a very complex issue, going to the very constitutional structure of balance between the coordinate branches of government.

What the left seems to be oblivious about is the fact that they have provided a rich menu or template against which the issue of immunity must be assessed. In fact, the more intense and extensive their weaponization efforts, the more it is incumbent on the SCOTUS to analyze immunity from every angle. If, as can be predicted, the opinions they render are themselves very complex, the left owes that fact to their own complex network of lawfare.

The Court will undoubtedly identify certain proactive areas which need partial or complete immunity under our system. If the Court does its job fully, however, the left has demonstrated a need for a reactive carve-out as well. A president needs to be able to react to political partisan lawfare by demonstrating its character. The jurisprudence of selective prosecution would provide a good starting point for analysis along those lines. Unless a president can protect his decisions against nakedly partisan attacks abusing the legal system, America will kiss separation of powers goodbye, and a corrupt regime will be able to attack without restraint its political enemies, just as they do in totalitarian tyrannies throughout the world.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.