CT Blue

A few observations resulting from legal developments this past week.

First, it appears increasingly likely that Trump will be convicted in his New York trial and that said conviction will take place within a few weeks.

Also, and somewhat to my surprise (but not totally, given the corruption on the Supreme Court) it appears likely that the court will find a way to grant Trump some form of immunity while not granting him full immunity. Just enough to lay the groundwork for endless interlocutory appeals that will delay the federal trials until after the election, thereby setting the stage (the corrupt judges hope) for him to pardon himself, something about which no one can make a legal case because after all, who has standing to complain about that? Of course, if he loses the election they don’t care if he ends up in jail. They simply see him as the only hope to return to the good old days when the courts were being stocked with right wing ideologues. It goes without saying that the Founders, whom they claim to channel, would not be particularly enthusiastic about changing the terminology from “the king can do no wrong” to “the president can do no wrong”, but they have never let intellectual honesty or actual historiography get in the way of their political objectives. Also, look for terminology in the decision that leaves it open for them to explain later that the decision does not apply to Democrats. You know, like Scalia did in Bush v. Gore.

That leaves them having to figure out a way to block the New York case somehow. First, a few basics:

1. The case in New York is based on state law, not federal law. Therefore, the New York courts should have the final say on interpreting those laws.
2. The only appeal from a state court conviction to a federal court would have to involve a claim that the criminal law in question was unconstitutional, or that the defendant was denied due process in the course of the trial.
3. Whatever immunity they extend to Trump in the case they just heard should not apply to the New York case because the criminal acts took place before he was president.

It will be interesting to see what Alito and the gang come up with to reverse the conviction or order a new trial. My guess is that they’ll go with some sort of due process argument. After all, the judge did make a $25.00 or so donation to the Democratic Party, which raises significant issues about his impartiality (this rationale not applicable to judges that donate to Republicans and especially not to judges that take bribes from big political donors). Also, Trump was denied his sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him because he was asleep! They do have a bit of a conundrum facing them, in that simply delaying until after the election doesn’t, or shouldn’t, stave off eventual conviction. Trump can’t pardon a state crime, though who knows, maybe they’ll decide that he (and only he) can.

I fervently hope that each and every one of these predictions turn out to be wrong. I am firmly convinced that they won’t.