The legal flaw of United States v. Trump
Public comments being made about the Trump indictment have all assumed that the state’s evidence passes scrutiny without due process and presumption. Commenting on the prosecution's case is not based in law, but in opinion (one law professor excitedly claims that the former president’s free speech is instead, a “confession”).
But the public needs to back up and ask the most basic legal question about the current criminal complaint against President Trump: is the plaintiff actually the United States of America? Isn’t it actually the DNC Party?
In this supposed criminal case, the only legitimate known fact that can asserted by legal experts as correct, is that the former U.S. president, as a defendant, has numerous rights in law. Those fundamental rights, which are also your rights, include due process, presumption of innocence, adherence to standards of evidence, and the vital right to cross examination -- but most of all, they include the right to confront the actual witnesses against you (Sixth Amendment). And in U.S. v. Trump, those actual witnesses are political party members and donors.
The beauty of the president’s defense, which is the same as the nation’s defense and its rights in election rule integrity, is that he has all the benefits of evidence, procedure, and case law on his side, including detailed fact and law dissent in Trump v. Biden, 394 Wis. 2d 629 where three of the seven state Supreme Court Justices, including Wisconsin Chief Justice, Patience D. Roggensack, made Trump’s, and the People’s, case by noting the DNC’s systematic violations of election laws, and as well, pointing out that the majority opinion of the court was announced by overt partisan judges who refused to consider evidence, or the law.
The current indictment relies on intent rather than fact (the word “knowingly” is used 30 times in the complaint). This partly explains why the DNC and its allies are desperate to cover up the 2020 election by converting it to a criminal prosecution, and turning incriminating facts into speculative intent.
Matthew G. Andersson is the author of the upcoming book Legally Blind. A former CEO, he has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times and by the National Academy of Sciences in law and economics. He has testified before the U.S. Senate and is a graduate of the University of Chicago. He studied with White House national security advisor W.W. Rostow at the LBJ School of Public Affairs.
Image: Fulton Superior Court