Day in Court<\/p>\n
Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s attorneys, told The Associated Press on Friday that the White House hopes to get a readout of the information next week, particularly about the use of a longtime government informant who approached members of Trump’s campaign in a possible bid to glean intelligence on Russian efforts to sway the election. Trump has made unproven claims of FBI misconduct and political bias and has denounced the asset as “a spy.” Chicago Tribune \u2013 5\/24\/18<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
{Full disclosure:\u00a0 I am not a lawyer.\u00a0 I am a retired government teacher, who for many years spent months of class time teaching students the criminal legal process}<\/em><\/p>\n
The essence of the American system of justice is an opportunity for fairness.\u00a0 Each side of a legal battle, at the appropriate time, gets to respond to the other.\u00a0 Each side is also given the opportunity to gain a judicial ruling about the legality of the process.\u00a0 It’s a carefully developed system, based on American and English law dating hundreds of years.<\/p>\n
In a criminal case, the government, represented by the police and the prosecutor, build a case based on the evidence they can gather.\u00a0 That evidence might include the results of questioning, search warrants, and other information.\u00a0 The process of gathering this is carefully defined by the law, and police and prosecutors are required to prove to a judge the probable cause for warrants, and that warnings were given before questioning.<\/p>\n
After the information is gathered, the prosecutor presents the evidence to a Grand Jury.\u00a0 This group of twenty-four citizens is chosen from the area where the case occurred.\u00a0 They listen to the evidence, and to the prosecutor\u2019s explanation of the law.\u00a0 They then conclude whether it is likely a crime has been committed, and if so, issue an indictment.<\/p>\n
Once the indictment is issued, the defendant (the person indicted) has the opportunity to view the evidence, and raise questions about the legality of the process used to gather that evidence.\u00a0\u00a0 They also can raise questions about the legality of the charges.\u00a0 Those questions are decided by a judge before a trial begins, a trial where a second jury of citizens, a petit jury of twelve, determines whether the evidence proving facts in a case reach a higher level of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, or about 90%.)<\/p>\n
If the jury determines that the evidence proves the case for the prosecution, they can return a verdict of guilty.\u00a0 If not, then the verdict returned is not guilty.\u00a0 It requires all twelve jurors to agree.<\/p>\n
Every citizen, from the list of those indicted for drug crimes in the Newark, Ohio newspaper, to Harvey Weinstein on every television in the nation, is guaranteed this due process of law.\u00a0 Equality in the eyes of the law is a bedrock principle of this nation.\u00a0 From the symbol of the \u201cscales of justice,\u201d weighing the evidence fairly, to the statues of \u201cLady Justice,\u201d eyes firmly bound closed so she can rule without favor; trust in America\u2019s justice system is based on fairness.<\/p>\n
If those with authority could intervene to prevent investigations from starting, or prevent conclusions, then all of the principles we hold would be violated.\u00a0Harvey Weinstein has been accused of using his political connections and donations to avoid prosecution, and it has taken the \u201ceyes of the world\u201d on his actions to bring him to justice.\u00a0 In the same way, William Lager, founder of the now defunct Education Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) schools in Ohio, used his political connections to try to stave off investigation.\u00a0 He managed to take $60 million in state funds, and only now faces possible charges.<\/p>\n
Rudy Giuliani, lawyer for President Trump, believes that the President, the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, should have the right to see the evidence before the Grand Jury or indictment.\u00a0 He believes the President should be able to make a \u201cruling\u201d on whether the grounds for investigation were legal, before a court can hear the case.\u00a0 He believes the President has the \u201cunitary authority\u201d to intervene on his own behalf to stop the investigation.<\/p>\n
To use a legal term, this is a \u201cprima facie\u201d case of undue influence. If the President has committed no crimes, let the process play out (as Senator McConnell and House Speaker Ryan call for) and take the argument to court.\u00a0 To interfere in the legal process, as Giuliani demands, is the act of a guilty man, unwilling to face the light of day a courtroom would provide.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m sure Harvey Weinstein and William Lager and those poor drug criminals in Newark would like the same power.\u00a0 But justice is balanced, and justice is blind.\u00a0 They must wait for their day in court, and so should the President.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"