Friday, June 14, 2024
HomeStatesideAs the Trump trial travesty nears its end, what chance of justice?

As the Trump trial travesty nears its end, what chance of justice?


FAR MORE important than the inevitable result of the British general election is the outcome of former US President Trump’s trial – ‘the trial without a crime’, as TCW’s Paul Homewood dubbed it a week or so ago, not that you would know from the MSM’s woeful and biased coverage. 

As is often the case it takes the Spectator Australia, edited by the wonderful Rowan Dean, to buck the trend. Here is a piece he’s just published by James Allan that delves further into this ‘lawfare’ travesty of Trump’s trial, a man, note, with no previous convictions. He asks: ‘What is the sample size or number of people who meet the following test – until the age of 75 they have never been charged with any criminal offence and certainly no serious indictable offences. Nothing at all. And then, after they turn 75 years old, they later get charged in four distinct US jurisdictions, in separate cases, that allege different and distinct indictable offences in all those places?’

Just one – Trump – is his guesstimate.

‘What we can all observe,’ he goes on, ‘is that when the criminal justice system of a country . . . singles out the leading opposition figure and candidate at the upcoming national election there are certainly some unpleasant similarities with the actions of a good few authoritarian regimes around the world these past 70 or 80 years, regimes that have been known to weaponise the justice system against political opponents.

‘Add in the fact that in two of the four of these cases against Mr Trump – the two state-level ones – the district attorneys bringing the cases were in noticeable part funded by George Soros and other hard-left Democrats and that they came into office as district attorneys on a promise ‘to get Trump’ somehow, some way; and the fact that in all four cases rather novel legal theories are being used by the prosecution; and that one of the four cases is being brought in a US jurisdiction that voted 87 per cent Democrat at the last presidential election and another in a jurisdiction that voted 93 per cent Democrat, making the jury pools in those two places rather, shall we say, favourable to the prosecutors; and that in some or all of these cases Democrat politicians have done exactly the same or indeed a good deal worse than what Mr Trump is alleged to have done. . .’

He goes on to set out why each of the charges is a bad joke. You can read the full article here

Over at the Epoch Times they tell us everything we need to know about the trial that we might not otherwise have picked up: the charges, what’s happened and, most importantly, what’s next. 

Today prosecutors will be summing up their case by reminding jurors of what they believe is the most compelling evidence. ‘Beyond Cohen’s and Clifford’s testimonies, most witnesses were called for to authenticate records like call logs, texts, and emails, which were then entered into evidence.’ For the defence, who called only two witnesses, this is the key moment to present their ‘narrative’: ‘Defense attorneys are expected to argue that nothing criminal occurred as non-disclosure agreements are legal, as is the payment of an attorney for legal services, and that influencing an election through lawful means cannot be a crime . . . they can be expected to try to poke as many holes they can find in the evidence prosecutors presented, arguing the district attorney failed to meet the burden of proving Trump had any intent to defraud.’

Then it all hangs on the jury. So as James Allan concluded his article: ‘We just have to wait to see whether an 87-per-cent-Democrat-voting Manhattan has produced a jury that will find one or two jurors who overcome the visceral hatred this place has for Trump and deliver a hung jury.’

On that the jury is still out, no pun intended. As for the real jury, they will have as long as they need, and if they cannot come to a unanimous verdict, the result is a mistrial.

We can but hope.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.