Is America Afraid to Prosecute Trump ?
Why Dimwitted talking heads and columnists falsely contend that proving Trump’s Guilt will be Difficult
By
David Gottfried
I have used the immediately preceding image before and so the use of this image amounts to reruns. However, if you have read my material, you know that I think media suffers when it is unduly imagistic. I believe that the elevation of images, over words, is steadily eviscerating our intellects. Just compare the rich oratory and the stentorian cadences of FDR, Adlai Stevenson and JFK with the imbecilic outbursts of midget-minded Donald Trump. In any event, lest I sound like a Victorian scold who has come into his child’s room to vandalize the media equipment, I will move on.
---
Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that America is afraid to prosecute Trump or doesn’t want to prosecute Trump. I think a lot of people who realize Trump is malevolent, and mad as a hatter to boot, don’t want to attack him too severely, and successfully, because they secretly admire what he sought to do: Inaugurate a new reign of intensified racism.
White racism has intensified since the inception of the modern civil rights movement because many whites detest black advances (Footnote 1). For example, when Doug Wilder, a black Democrat, ran for Governor of Virginia in 1991, polls forecast that he’d win by 18 points; he won by 1 point. Similarly, when David Dinkins ran against Rudy Guiliani in the NYC mayoralty in 1989, he was supposed to win by 8 points; he won by about two points. White racists don’t tell pollsters what they think, and the extent of white racism is underestimated.
I believe that many Americans don’t want to prosecute Trump or are afraid to prosecute Trump because, among other things, so much erroneous legal information has been bandied about in the media.
I have read articles, and have heard columnists, cite illusory reasons as to why it will be difficult to get a criminal conviction against Trump. These are two of the nonsensical reasons posited:
1) It will be very difficult to prove Trump’s guilt because it will be difficult to prove his criminal intent. This is unadulterated poppycock.
This gibberish is something that we learned to refute by the second week of the first year of law school.
For centuries it was understood that one had to demonstrate two things to convict someone of a crime:
a) An “actus reus” or a criminal act committed by the Defendant
And
b) A “mens rea” or the Defendant’s criminal state of mind or intent to commit the criminal act.
However, the prosecutor did not have to prove as much as the preceding suggests. Obviously, we don’t have mind-reading equipment, and we are not clairvoyant. Therefore, we can never dispositively prove what thoughts are in another person’s mind. Accordingly, for hundreds of years Anglo-American jurisprudence had held that WE SHALL INFER AND PRESUME THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THE STATE OF MIND CONGRUENT WITH THE CRIMINAL ACT HE COMMITTED. In other words, if Defendant robs a bank, we don’t have to hire a mind reader to read his mind. Rather, we infer that because he robbed a bank, he intended to rob a bank. If the Defendant robs a bank, the burden of proof is on the Defendant to show that he did not intend to rob a bank, e.g., he was on an acid trip and he thought the money he took out of the bank vault was a popsicle in his refrigerator. In Trump’s case, he can only establish that he did not have the requisite criminal intent if he can prove that he was utterly insane and actually, truly believed that he had won the election.
So take your pick, Trumpers and dictatorship humpers. Either Mr. Trump goes into the slammer for instigating a coup or he belongs in a funny farm.
2) On a couple of television “news” programs, carefully coiffed and manicured mental defectives said that Trump can avoid criminal liability if he can convince the jury that he believed that his actions were not in violation of the law. This is alien to everything I was ever taught about the law: Criminal Law has always posited, as one of its most fundamental and cherished values, that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
As President, Donald Trump did not care if one was ignorant of the Law or if one was completely innocent of any wrongdoing as his agents and allies were only interested in augmenting his reign of ribald rule. And so he separated children from their parents at the border, and threw the children into wire cages, and some of those children have yet to be reunited with their parents. Since Trump felt free to dispense Justice with all the fairness of an Egyptian Pharoah, and since he and his confederates may be planning to pull another January 6 in the future, this is no time to pull our punches.
---
Footnote 1: This is similar to what happened in Europe with respect to the Jews: Arguably, antisemitism gradually grew since the inception of the emancipation of the Jews, during the French Revolution, until it culminated in the crematoria of the Holocaust because gentiles were furious at Jewish advances. I discussed this in the course of analyzing the political psychopathology of Marshall Petain’s Vichy France, https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/the-stench-of-vichy-in-the-regime
David, you are quite possibly my favorite articulator ever...wait is that a w0rd??? Well, I 'dont know but you can be my mouthpeace anyDay.
Thank you (8-]'