Sorry, I didn't understand this bit: "In the US, we try ex-presidents by public clamour pitted against armed bodyguards." My understanding, and it's a pretty good one, is that the former guy is being tried for crimes the government has evidence enough to convince a grand jury to issue an indictment. Full stop.
Mr Trump has been indicted and, you are correct, that requires presentation of the "probable cause" against him to a grand jury, in light of which it decided there is enough probable cause to warrant an indictment. It's a procedure that is designed to obviate frivolous claims against accused persons for serious crimes. Clearly, the state in this case does not consider its claims frivolous, and this stance has now been shown to be warranted.
But, otherwise than in a case of, say, murder, where the reaction from the public tends on the whole to err towards something akin to "That's dreadful, but the evidence will show whether the accused actually committed the offence," in this case, many people seem convinced already of the man's (a) guilt (and say so in blogs such as Substack or in the newspapers, etc. ("public clamour")), or of his (b) innocence (which his staunchest defenders have said they would back with the NRA ("armed bodyguards")).
There is less readiness on either side to leave the matter to the judicial system to decide than in a typical case of murder (whose precise facts are generally less well known up front). And yet it is the cogency of the judicial system that is in many ways at stake; for an independent judiciary and the rule of law are precisely what those who clamour publicly want to see applied, and, if that be so, it is less comprehensible that they clamour to advocate how the judiciary should decide, for that is less independent. For Trump's proponents, the argument is that the judicial system, in the form of the Justice Department, is procuring a vendetta against Mr Trump and he, therefore, cannot be assured a fair trial. There may be some in that latter camp who believe he is guilty in law but ought on that ground not to receive a fair trial, but should get off anyway, because, in a nutshell, they see any illegality in his acts as being justifiable by overriding circumstances. If that latter case is so, then these are circumstances that will be led in argument at his trial, and his judges will assess their validity at law. If they constitute revolution, they'll be dismissed however. But no one can judicially reject a revolution. Such is the nature of revolution.
Some headlines are asking "Will Mr Biden pardon Mr Trump?" Before Mr Biden can pardon anyone, they have to have been found guilty of a criminal offence at trial. So, the question is somewhat jumping the gun. And is perhaps intended to influence how the trigger is pulled.
Mr Trump is unlike any other accused, and yet Mr Trump is like any other accused. He has the right to remain silent; he has the right to an attorney; he has the right to defend himself, and he has the right to test the state's case against him. What the prosecution must do is prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And the rule of law demands that, even if he's arrested, and even if probable cause is found to exist by a grand jury, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until guilt be proven. If people cannot ally themselves to that idea, then why is he being prosecuted at all?
Well, he's being prosecuted because there's probable cause. But those who dislike him would prefer perhaps that Mr Trump be disposed of in some other fashion, so bloodthirsty are they. And that is what the rule of law should strive to obviate. People must be confident that Mr Trump, and any one else accused of a crime in the US, will be treated fairly. If that is not so, then the rule of law will have failed, and mob rule will have started to be the standard by which guilt or innocent is judged, and that, I believe, is insidious. You may care to read this other article by me, in which I quote Niemöller's poem about Nazism: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/oh-ye-of-little-faith.
The Justice Department is doing sterling work here. But the Justice Department cannot convict Mr Trump. Only the court can. Public clamour cannot convict him. Unless they be a lynch mob. And, if he be guilty, the NRA cannot render him innocent, unless they be a band of brigands. The rule of law, which we must ally to our hearts, is what will decide. And not we ourselves. Otherwise ... revolution.
Sorry, I didn't understand this bit: "In the US, we try ex-presidents by public clamour pitted against armed bodyguards." My understanding, and it's a pretty good one, is that the former guy is being tried for crimes the government has evidence enough to convince a grand jury to issue an indictment. Full stop.
Mr Trump has been indicted and, you are correct, that requires presentation of the "probable cause" against him to a grand jury, in light of which it decided there is enough probable cause to warrant an indictment. It's a procedure that is designed to obviate frivolous claims against accused persons for serious crimes. Clearly, the state in this case does not consider its claims frivolous, and this stance has now been shown to be warranted.
But, otherwise than in a case of, say, murder, where the reaction from the public tends on the whole to err towards something akin to "That's dreadful, but the evidence will show whether the accused actually committed the offence," in this case, many people seem convinced already of the man's (a) guilt (and say so in blogs such as Substack or in the newspapers, etc. ("public clamour")), or of his (b) innocence (which his staunchest defenders have said they would back with the NRA ("armed bodyguards")).
There is less readiness on either side to leave the matter to the judicial system to decide than in a typical case of murder (whose precise facts are generally less well known up front). And yet it is the cogency of the judicial system that is in many ways at stake; for an independent judiciary and the rule of law are precisely what those who clamour publicly want to see applied, and, if that be so, it is less comprehensible that they clamour to advocate how the judiciary should decide, for that is less independent. For Trump's proponents, the argument is that the judicial system, in the form of the Justice Department, is procuring a vendetta against Mr Trump and he, therefore, cannot be assured a fair trial. There may be some in that latter camp who believe he is guilty in law but ought on that ground not to receive a fair trial, but should get off anyway, because, in a nutshell, they see any illegality in his acts as being justifiable by overriding circumstances. If that latter case is so, then these are circumstances that will be led in argument at his trial, and his judges will assess their validity at law. If they constitute revolution, they'll be dismissed however. But no one can judicially reject a revolution. Such is the nature of revolution.
Some headlines are asking "Will Mr Biden pardon Mr Trump?" Before Mr Biden can pardon anyone, they have to have been found guilty of a criminal offence at trial. So, the question is somewhat jumping the gun. And is perhaps intended to influence how the trigger is pulled.
Mr Trump is unlike any other accused, and yet Mr Trump is like any other accused. He has the right to remain silent; he has the right to an attorney; he has the right to defend himself, and he has the right to test the state's case against him. What the prosecution must do is prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And the rule of law demands that, even if he's arrested, and even if probable cause is found to exist by a grand jury, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until guilt be proven. If people cannot ally themselves to that idea, then why is he being prosecuted at all?
Well, he's being prosecuted because there's probable cause. But those who dislike him would prefer perhaps that Mr Trump be disposed of in some other fashion, so bloodthirsty are they. And that is what the rule of law should strive to obviate. People must be confident that Mr Trump, and any one else accused of a crime in the US, will be treated fairly. If that is not so, then the rule of law will have failed, and mob rule will have started to be the standard by which guilt or innocent is judged, and that, I believe, is insidious. You may care to read this other article by me, in which I quote Niemöller's poem about Nazism: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/oh-ye-of-little-faith.
The Justice Department is doing sterling work here. But the Justice Department cannot convict Mr Trump. Only the court can. Public clamour cannot convict him. Unless they be a lynch mob. And, if he be guilty, the NRA cannot render him innocent, unless they be a band of brigands. The rule of law, which we must ally to our hearts, is what will decide. And not we ourselves. Otherwise ... revolution.