By Judy Bucgard, retired attorney

June 3, 2024

Musings on the Trump Trial and Verdict. America’s Joan of Arv?

I am no expert on criminal law. My entire career involved drafting contracts, deeds, and other real estate matters for my oil and gas clients. At the same time, I raised four beautiful children. Regardless, here are my musings on the horrific lawfare waged not just against President Trump but against any of his supporters who have stood with him in the battle for election integrity. 

 On the very same day, the ex-president was found guilty of 34 criminal offenses, which coincided with the anniversary of St. Joan of Arc’s execution. Regardless of being implicated in different offenses, her trial was politically motivated. Her successes were what truly broke the establishment. She dealt with consequences for standing up to the authorities of her period. Eventually, her defeat was a triumph over those who outlined against her, resulting in her being revered as a hero and saint throughout history.

Chesterton was slammed for appearing to question the judicial system. He described that his lack of faith came from his faith’s creator having unfavorable encounters with the legal institutions of his era.

The indefatigable Alan Dershowitz would not have the very same property as Chesterton but stated that the trial of the ex-president was a disgrace that made the old expression “banana republic” pertain to his uneasy mind.

The legal techniques used by those against President Trump may appear to signal the failure of his impressive political journey; however, observing the situation of the president of Brazil might provide a different point of view. Despite being ideologically different, the case of Lula da Silva, who went from the presidency to jail and then back to the Presidency, reveals that a criminal conviction does not always prevent a leader’s opportunity for reelection by the public.

The celebration of the verdict by political partisans might not be so prolonged. Sir Robert Walpole made a pithy remark about the conflict between Spain and Great Britain, later referred to as the War of Jenkins’ Ear. “They may ring their bells now,” said the British Prime Minister, “soon they will be wringing their hands.”

Maybe it is my viewpoint that makes me think that. I know many individuals who have been on the wrong side of the law, both literally and in its working out in individual circumstances. Dickens’s Mr. Bumble (in Oliver Twist), who concluded that “the law was an ass– an idiot” since it presumed a better half was under the control of her other half, would not have a difficult time convincing a few of my faithful who “captured” cases and then caught the despair associated with plea deals. The law seems to reveal favorites more regularly than not. attorney

One of my clients described he had spent 2 years in prison for a DUI when others got off with lighter sentences and told me that it was because his lawyer was just a “public pretender.” I do not mean to disparage a class of specialists by the bon mot. However, I have seen for myself the aggressive nature of district attorneys who will do anything to keep their statistics of convictions high and public protectors appointed in many cases where their first acquaintance with their customer is in the hallway of the courtroom minutes before a hearing.

This is not simply individual sympathy. I am no scholar of the law, however judicial choices frequently appear to be orders that are no chance near transparently simply. Roe v. Wade long ago taught me that judges can be egregiously incorrect. Using the courts for political ends is not new, of course. Still, the Biden administration’s persecution of the pro-life movement has further undermined my confidence in a system so susceptible to the prejudices of professionals.

I have constantly felt uneasy with the comparison of blindness to represent the functioning of the substantial legal system. In El Salvador, there is a striking public sculpture of a naked female wearing a blindfold and holding the scales of justice, a sign that I discovered, and I choose not to elaborate on that at the moment.

Will the enemies of the as soon as and would-be future president prevail, utilizing the courts to ruin his candidacy? Is doing not like a political leader adequate reason to endorse a strategy that is so brazenly partisan? The justice system can be the victim of “politics as legal soap opera.”
Is not like a politician enough factor to back a strategy that is so brazenly partisan?

In Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons, Thomas, the law must not be controlled for personal gain. The continuous legal procedures, including Mr. Trump in New York, appear to be using the law for political intentions. This legal system abuse produces uncertainty and risk for people, similar to navigating a hazardous and unstable course in a city of challenges. Someday I might want to count the number of Saitns and Martyrs who have been the victims of what we call today’s “lawfare”? I bet the number might be surprisingly large.

The day before the decision in New York, a boy informed me that he had spent six months in jail for a criminal offense he did not commit to which he had pled guilty on the suggestions of his public defender. That guy will not likely hold it against Trump that a kangaroo court sided against him and his political challengers.

The Democrats need to understand that they may have gone a bridge too far on their tar and feathering job. Many people have a lingering suspicion that the deck has been stacked against them at different times, and they can identify with somebody who claims the same. I don’t think Mr. Trump will end up canonized or the Patron Saint of France like St. Joan, but he may discover himself back in the White House, which will be a most uncomfortable paradox for some. Yes, I think the Democrats might decide that making a martyr out of Trump was not such a good idea after all.