Innocent until Proven Guilty? No. Trump has to Prove his Innocence
I’ve been through the indictment, I’ve read the analysis from experts. There are so many technicalities that other people would not have to worry about – like the fact that the statute of limitations apparently depends on how long he was in New York, certainly not the intent of a true statute of limitations.
But here is what troubles me most.
The indictment is dependent on his actions covering up crimes. These are “crimes” he has never been charged with, much less convicted of. If you believe the analysts, they are crimes of a federal nature, outside of the jurisdiction of the New York courts, so Bragg can’t convict him of said crimes. Never mind that the crimes were not cited in the indictment and Trump himself may not know what they are yet.
And this is the most troubling and outrageous part of this whole case.
To win this case, Trump has to prove to a bunch of biased jurists, people who almost certainly voted against him, THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY OF CRIMES WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF, NOR EVEN ACCUSED OF.
This is unbelievable latitude for the prosecution. He can literally make up these crimes and Trump’s legal team will have to defend them. If they do not mount a defense against whatever the prosecution comes up with, then it is a simple matter of convincing the jury that they are true. Remember this is a jury randomly selected from a district that voted almost 90% against Trump. The prosecution doesn’t need proof or even evidence, he just needs a silver tongue.
Think about it. Someone accuses you of conspiracy to rob a bank, but the bank is in another state, and nobody has bothered to check if it has been robbed? Or you are accused of an out-of-state murder, and the authorities in that state are saying “Nah, he’s still walking around.”
A prosecutor with this latitude is free to pile on as many charges as he likes. He doesn’t need proof, he can bury his target in legal expenses and time consuming defenses, tar him with a bad reputation in the media, and if all of that doesn’t work, then he can start over with greater imagination.
This is contrary to Constitutional principles; it is contrary to everything we expect in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic protection, an inalienable right in America.
And yet, the Democrats have managed to subvert these principles to attack a political enemy. I can’t say this is unprecedented since it has happened to Trump several times already (with many more in the works).
The real question is do we tolerate this kind of behavior in our politicians?