A BIGGER PICTURE

Sorry to trouble you with constant and persistent mulling over of matters relating to Donald Trump, but I have just received an email from my American legal advisor Bob whose last email I posted on the 29^th April 2024 in which he made comment about the makeup of the Supreme Court. In this instance he comments on the recent trial in Manhattan. I feel it is worth a read.

 

Many have commented on the nature of the prosecution as being trivial in comparison to the other indictments Mr Trump faces. Indeed, some have commented that the defence may well be able to appeal against the convictions on the basis that, on the facts in evidence it is difficult to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Trump’s falsification of business records was intended and calculated to deceive. The case therefore should be dismissed as a matter of law. The members of the jury, however, were unanimous and clearly felt the evidence led to only one conclusion, that his actions intended to deceive. That is a fact any appellate court will have to contend with.

 

In any event, what was done to deceive the American people is no trivial matter. It is not a simple misdemeanour. It amounts to a serious criminal act which has led to serious harm and injury to Americans and continues to do so by its venal and vindictive divisive nature. That any political party or individual citizen can stand behind this man is beyond comprehension. To allow a convicted felon, who has lost his right to even vote, to stand for election, surpasses insanity. We are in the twilight zone.

 

I am generally against custodial sentences of any kind. They serve no purpose; however, there are instances where some individuals are so harmful and dangerous to others, that it is imperative that they be isolated to protect the public. Sad, but that is sometimes the case. As Bob so clearly concludes, there is a bigger picture. 

 

In Defence of Trump? 

During my legal career, I tried hundreds of matters, both jury and non-jury in California and a few in the federal courts. I spent six years as a prosecutor, and another few years on the superior court’s defence panel. I tried numerous other matters after that. 

 

The trial of DJT was no surprise to anyone with any trial experience as far as the elements that were reported on by the news media. The surprise was in how DJT forced his defence team into a corner and never called Allen Weisselberg in his defence.  

 

Weisselberg was “in the room” for the payment discussions between DJT and Michael Cohen. Clearly, Weisselberg was available only a few miles away as a prisoner serving time at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, about 12 miles from the court. The Court could have ordered him to court as a witness at the Defence’s request. Due to his NDL with Trump and the payment of several million dollars for his silence, he was not really available to the prosecution.  

 

Additionally, DJT could have elected to testify in his own defence that he had no knowledge of exactly what the payments to Cohen were for – although his signatures were on some of the checks paid to Cohen.

 

The main point of this case, which has been missed by most of the media, is that if the Stormy Daniels saga was released right after the “Access Hollywood” video was released, it most likely could have changed the Presidential election result. The whole point of the prosecution was that DJT withheld vital information about himself from the electorate just a few weeks before the election. The result of the subterfuge was a catastrophic 4 year presidency with top staff resigning every few months and a fumbled handling of the Covid pandemic leading to the unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States. 

 

Additionally, DJT has interfered with witnesses testifying in a number of Congressional hearings and trials. Everyone who has worked for him has been required to sign a “non-disclosure agreement”. His “go to” is to hide information about himself and then publicly tell untruths and half-truths that help make him look good. He’s told his followers not to listen to the “main stream” media but only listen to him. In furtherance of this tactic, he’s started “OAN” and “Truth Social” to funnel his lies and half-truths to his followers and low information voters. 

 

DJT, before, during, and after the trial, has repeatedly attacked the courts, the judge, and our judicial system to delegitimize US courts and the system of justice. 

 

So, in sentencing DJT, the Judge should certainly take into account the big picture of the significance of this case. Most who have violated these statutes in New York spend significant time in prison. If we are a rule of law country, then this case should be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.