Politicians and “diplomatic immunity”

[Legend]

Now that we are seeing the idea of prosecuting one’s political enemies going from concept (“lock her up”) to reality, should the country explore a constitutional amendment that provides something akin to diplomatic immunity from nonviolent crime for candidates?

Trump may be guilty of many crimes, but is it really in the national interest to allow a local (politically elected) DA to lock down a national candidate for high office?

I have been pondering this. I do believe that Trump is being wrongfully prosecuted even if I can say he is likely guilty of something in the criminal code of some jurisdiction somewhere.

I also believe that calling a $130k NDA settlement a campaign finance violation for a guy who largely funded his own (2016) campaign is, in practical terms, silly.

____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)

[Mick1]

So you’re saying that a Democratic prosecutor with a Democratic judge facing 12 Democrats in the jury in a Democratic state shouldn’t be allowed to invent a crime that’s fundamentally the equivalent of the $850k that Clinton paid Paula Jones?

Yes, I think I’d have to agree.

If you have a chance, check out the opinion of Harvard Law School professor and Democrat Alan Dershowitz. The case was flimsy at best, but the courts didn’t account for anti-candidate bias:

‘He was doomed’: Alan Dershowitz reveals exact moment he knew Trump would be held guilty but Internet not convinced (msn.com)

Dershowitz also thinks it won’t be overturned on appeal:

No Judge Will Overturn Donald Trump’s Conviction—Alan Dershowitz (msn.com)

But likely that it would be overturned at the Supreme Court level:

Trump’s appeal of hush money verdict to focus on Stormy Daniels testimony (msn.com)

One of the things that Dershowitz railed against is that it won’t happen in time for the election. That’s the nature of American jurisprudence. When Enron went down, Andersen was fingered to take the blame. They appealed all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which found that the judge’s instructions were flawed…in a 9-0 verdict. But Andersen was forced out of business years prior to that.

Supreme Court overturns Arthur Andersen’s Enron conviction (chron.com)

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Mick1.

Audaces fortuna iuvat

[Author]

Posts