The Roger Stone case is yet another example in which many
people misunderstand the real issues. A
number of my right-wing friends have expressed agreement with Trump’s assertion
that the proposed seven to nine-year sentence by the Justice Department was too
harsh. These friends point to other
cases in which those who lied to congress have received lesser sentences. And now we have people saying the jury itself
was an unfair jury because one of its members participated in anti-Trump
events.
Even if all of the above is correct and my right leaning
friends are absolutely right, they are guilty of letting the specific case
blind them to the real issue. And what
is that issue? The issue is that the
President, and by extension, the Executive Branch of government is interfering
with the Judicial Branch of government and thereby violating the principle of
separation of powers.
You and I can say whatever we like about a judicial
ruling. We can even go so far as to
question whether the judges are any good.
But the President cannot do this because his commentary interferes with and
influences judicial operations. Nobody
with half a brain can think the Justice Department woke up one morning and
collectively decided to reverse their sentencing recommendation. We know this did not happen because several
prosecutors resigned as a result. The Executive
Branch applied political pressure to influence the Judicial Branch and this is
wrong.
Then President Trump commented that one of the jurors was
unqualified to sit on that particular trial.
If you or I made that comment, that would be a harmless comment. But the President leads the Executive
Branch. The woman in question got on to
the jury because both the prosecution and defence allowed her to be there. If Stone’s lawyers were so concerned about
her supposedly anti-Trump leaning, why did they allow her on the jury in the
first place? Each side is able to
challenge potential jury candidates. The
judge did not force the jury on either side.
Thus, even if Stone appeals for this reason, I would be surprised if the
verdict was overturned. Appeals are
based on whether procedure was followed, and procedure was followed.
Let’s assume, as I think Stone will argue in his appeal,
that at the time of jury selection, they were unaware of her leanings. Let us also assume she does have anti-Trump
leanings. Given 11 other people also
found him guilty, we must question whether those leanings had any
influence. It is true that sometimes,
during a trial, we find out something about a juror which causes a mistrial and
in fairness to Stone, he is asking for a new trial. At the time of writing, the Judge is considering
his application. But I think it is fair
to say that mistrials have been granted in the past when the juror has either
done something inappropriately, violated their duty (e.g. watched news
broadcasts and reports about the trial they are sitting on), or been tampered
with. We have no reason to believe this
woman has done any of these? She expressed
her views as is her right as an American. Now imagine the precedent a mistrial
would set in this case.
Imagine, if you will, a black man on trial for
murder. He is convicted and we find out
later that one of the jurors used to be a member of the KKK. Would that be grounds for a mistrial? Probably.
But now let’s suppose that man left the KKK and expressed deep remorse
and completely changed his life and his attitude. Would we still declare a mistrial if the
black man were acquitted? Probably
not. Membership in the KKK is more than
just a political opinion. Membership in
such an organization means actively trying to harm African-Americans.
In this case, however, the woman in question expressed a
political opinion. And now we are being
asked to believe that people who do this for a particular opinion should not be
allowed on a jury? You might argue the
Stone case is a political one. It is
not. There is one question and one
question only the jury needs to consider.
Did Stone lie to congress? That’s
it. He either did, or he did not. If we are saying that Americans who hold a
political opinion should not decide such questions, we must then turn into a surveillance
state to ensure people have no political opinions whatsoever. Good luck with that. The Constitution calls for a person’s piers
to sit in judgment of a case. We then
allow each side to vet the jury pool.
That is about as fair as you can get it.
If we allow a mistrial because we find out afterward someone has a
different political opinion to the President, who should not in any way
interfere with a case, then it means no politician can be held too account for
their actions. It means friends of politicians
can do whatever they want. It means we
move one step closer to dictatorship.
The constitution allows the US President only two ways to
influence the Judicial Branch. The first
is that the President appoints federal judges.
The second is that the President may pardon someone convicted by the
Judicial Branch. That’s it. He cannot do anything else. Trump has gone way beyond what the Constitution
allows him to do.
The Judicial Branch needs to rise up against this, just
as some within it have. If they do not,
they will become irrelevant. And what is
congress doing? Republican lawmakers
should be ashamed of themselves because their inaction threatens the very
Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
Trump has already violated that duty; it’s time for the other branches
to fulfil theirs.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home