OK, friends, today is Monday, July 1, and the last day of the U.S. Supreme Court term. As widely predicted, the Supremes handed the Tangerine Palpatine another arrow for his quiver, to be wielded in his fight against accountability.
Let the hair-pulling begin!
As an experienced legal practitioner with a decade providing indigent defense services, allow me to provide you with an easy answer to avoid further unnecessary delay in bringing Dolt 45 to trial.
In order to avail himself of his latest gift from Minas Morgul, the ex-president* will need to show which of the specific acts underlying his various charges were “official acts” and which were not. This type of determination can only be made based on an examination of evidence, and drawing conclusions from that evidence (i.e., “fact-finding”). Attorneys for Voldemoron will doubtless ask that the various trial court judges overseeing his various cases conduct this inquiry pursuant to pre-trial motions. But, there is an easier way which is fair, reliable, and baked into the existing criminal justice system.
When a criminal defendant is charged with a crime, and there is a legal defense to that crime, it is often referred to as an “affirmative defense.” In the United States, affirmative defenses are asserted at trial, before the jury. Here’s an easy example. . .let’s say I am charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm. However, I have a permit that allows me to carry that weapon. Therefore, at trial, because I have an affirmative defense, the state must not only prove that I violated the statute forbidding carrying a concealed weapon, but that I did so without a permit. All this must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury will make the ultimate decision.
Therein lies our solution. Trial will go forward, the parties will agree (or the judge will rule on) the definition of an “official act,” and the jury will be instructed what that legal definition is. They will hear the evidence, along with arguments of counsel, and determine in the jury room whether the various acts underlying the charges were “official acts” or not. If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that an act was not official, and thus not protected by “presidential immunity,” the jury will return a verdict of GUILTY (which I fully expect to happen several more times in the Vanity Manatee’s near future).
There is nothing novel or unusual about this approach. This is how affirmative legal defenses are handled in courtrooms across the country every day. This is how the affirmative defense of “presidential immunity” should be handled in this case, full stop.
Let’s get these trials underway.
(what say you, ?)