Now Comes the Tough Part

We rejoice, those of us whose every fiber believes that the disemboweling of Orange Julius would be too good for him. (Oh, by the way, I will now only refer to that bragging bacterium by his present status – “Defendant.”) The Defendant has now been indicted for election interference – the most serious of the offenses included in his constitutional crime spree. He now faces a real possibility of finally being held to account for his most contemptable crimes. Whoopee! 

But just as a part of me is exultant, another part of me is apprehensive. I feel the same way I used to feel when the Yankees would win a pennant (not recently). I was thrilled. But, on the other hand, I was anxious because now they qualified for the big prize – the World Series. So, now they were in a position to lose the one that really mattered. 

Like the pennant winning Yankees, we can now waive the banner that says, “Trump Indicted.” But that only takes us to the big one – the World Series of the criminal justice system – the trial. At the end of the day, it all means nothing – in fact, less than nothing – if we never get a chance to waive the banner that says, “Trump Convicted.” And we very well may not.

We were reminded by the Special Counsel that an indictment is just an accusation. Now must come the proof. Not just proof like what you need when you get carded by an illiterate bouncer. No, now the government will need proof like you need when you get tested by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

On the good side, it seems like there is a truckload of evidence about the Phony Electors part of the case. These Phony Electors were the people with no authority to do so who just pretended to be the real Electors so that the Congress would count them instead of the Electors who truly got the votes. The Republicans tend to call them the “Alternate Electors”. But that, as they likely know, is a lie. These Electors were not “alternates” within the meaning of that word in the English language. They were not intended to simply step in if the other Electors were rejected. That would be entirely legal. These were just clowns who signed fraudulent documents to make it look like they were the real Electors in the first place. They were impersonators. Some of them are now being prosecuted for this in Wisconsin.

But even in the Elector scheme, the Government still has to prove that the Defendant was a knowing part of it. I have faith that the Special Prosecutor would not bring this charge unless he had that. Please, God, let him have that. 

However, the other part of the case doesn’t look as good. The other part requires the government to prove that the Defendant knew it was wrong when he told everyone that he had won the election – that he was lying about it. If so, that’s fraud, and no matter what the Republican lying apologists say, there is no First Amendment right to commit fraud. 

But here’s the irony of ironies. It is going to be hard to prove this time that the Defendant – the man from whose lips flow lies like diarrhea flows from dysentery – was actually lying. Sure, they have witnesses who will say that he told them he had lost, but that just may not be enough. Those witnesses were all once close to the Defendant and were instrumental in his Administration. A first-year law student could come up with a damning cross-examination to undermine the credibility of people who once repeatedly supported the Defendant’s Presidential fabrications. 

And then there is this. 

Anyone who has had any personal business with the Defendant or anyone who has been paying attention to his life history knows that the Defendant’s megalomaniacal sickness requires him to reject even the slightest possibility of his having lost anything, let alone a Presidential election. In his twisted mind, the worst thing that can be said about other human beings (assuming he is one) is that they are “LOSERS.” It does not matter how many knowledgeable experts told him he lost, as long as one lunatic told him that he won. He would believe the lunatic as steadfastly as kids on Christmas morning believe in Santa Claus. If asked if he really thought that he won, he would say, “yes” and he would pass a lie detector.

So, what does that mean as far as the law goes? So, what if he believed what he was saying?

Well, the way the indictment deals with this stuff is by making all the crimes based on some form of fraud. All of the counts depend on the Defendant having committed fraud for their validity. What’s a fraud? The federal statute says it is falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact by any trick, scheme, or device. And for a person to commit a crime, including a crime involving fraud, they have to have what the law calls, mens rea, or criminal intent. So, if the Defendant truly thought that he won, then his intent was not to falsify, conceal or cover up anything. It can legitimately be argued that he did not have the intent necessary for his actions to be fraudulent and, therefore, to be a crime.

Who might buy that argument? This gets us to the non-legal but maybe more likely reason to worry. A typical jury is chosen to exclude anyone who has formed a personal opinion about the person on trial. Even if they have such an opinion, jurors are asked if they can set aside their opinions and be fair. When it comes to the Defendant, try and find somebody on this planet who can do that. The opinions people hold about the Defendant are a lot more passionate than say opinions about who sells the best french fries. It would take a lot of drugs to set aside opinions about the Defendant.

This, of course, works both ways. I may love a jury of Defendant-haters, but I also love my country’s court process. Kangaroo courts are no good even if their results are good. This trial has to be fair to both sides.

So, both legally and practically, the chances of the Defendant slipping through this latest charge are more than marginal. If he is ever able to proclaim victory, the potential implications of that result are too repulsive to contemplate.

Have a good day.