In Court Cases Facts Are Losing Their Relevancy as They Have in News Reporting, Scholarship, and Science

In Court Cases Facts Are Losing Their Relevancy as They Have in News Reporting, Scholarship, and Science

Paul Craig Roberts

Informed people understand that the indictments, civil charges, and judicial rulings against Trump all involve what is politely called “a stretch of the law.”  But they do not seem to grasp that Trump’s defense against the charges is not based on the falseness of the charges but on whether he has presidential immunity.  

In other words, the phony charges stand, and the question is whether Trump has presidential immunity.  Whether the charges are factual is not considered relevant.

The advantage in Trump’s attorneys taking this approach is that if Trump has immunity, all the indictments are dismissed and trials over the disputed charges do not take place, a good thing as the biases of the Democrat prosecutors, judges, and jurors make fair trials for Trump impossible.

The disadvantage is that Trump’s enemies can claim that the charges are true but could not be brought to trial because of immunity.  More seriously, it means that the lack of evidentiary basis for the charges will not be established.  In other words, the Democrat prosecutors who weaponized law in order to intentionally concoct false indictments are protected from having their crimes revealed.

Of course the Democrat juries and judges would validate the Democrat prosecutors cases despite the lack of evidence.  In the US judicial system where truth is irrelevant, accusation alone serves as the basis for indictment and conviction.  As no defendant or defendant’s lawyer trusts the American judicial system, 97% of all alleged felonies are resolved with plea bargains in which even innocent defendants agree to a lessor charge in order to avoid  the risk of a longer sentence imposed by a trial.  Only the idealistically few expect a fair trial.

By declining the Justice (sic) Department’s plea to fast-track an immunity decision, the Supreme Court has probably delayed any Trump trial until after the election.  If the federal appeals court upholds Democrat district court judge Tanya Chutkan’s biased ruling against Trump, then the appeal goes to the Supreme Court.  It lengthens the ordeal that Trump has to endure, but it likely frees him from campaigning with a false conviction hanging around his neck.

Share this page

Follow Us