The practice of the criminal law is beyond me here in Australia, much less the U S, but the following issues in the response to the indictments seem to me to be at best odd.

Some speak as if there is some overall strategy in play.  The AFR says ‘Yet the legal pursuit of Mr Trump in the courts is still not a real strategy for enabling America to genuinely put the Trump era behind it.’  The prosecutions occur in different jurisdictions.  There is no basis for suggesting some government agency is orchestrating some ‘strategy’ behind them – to which some may append the label ‘political.’

Some say that the charges are politically motivated.  What does that mean?  If it is intended to be a criticism, what is the evidence of it?  Does an improper motive taint a prosecution – and if so with what result?  (Socrates tried that one on in Athens, and it did not end happily.)  Does it matter if those responsible for the prosecution loathe the accused?  Did the prosecutors at Nuremberg have an open mind about those they were intent on sending to their death?

One basis is common to each of the prosecutions.  The U S subscribes to the rule of law.  That is essential to our whole conception of good governance (something that Trump knows nothing of and does not cherish).  A central plank is that we are all equal under the law – or, no one is above the law.  It would be very wrong for a prosecutor not to proceed with a case that it is otherwise proper to bring, merely because the circumstances may be called ‘political,’ or might attract consequences that are ‘political.’

These indictments come with due process.  In particular, they come after findings of a grand jury.  That process is a thousand or so years old, but it only now remains in the U S.  They are much better there at preserving trial by jury.  And this mode of proceeding confers rights on the potential accused that we do not see here.  (Local defence lawyers may prefer to have a go at prosecution witnesses at the committal; others, including the alleged victim and the taxpayers, may think differently.)

And the intervention of a jury before the proceedings start makes allegations of impropriety against those bringing the charges even more weightless.  There is no evidence at all of impropriety in the jury.  Those making the allegations are insulting the jurors and demeaning the process.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  (De Santis says a DC jury would indict a ham sandwich – if it was a Republican ham sandwich.)

(And a civil jury found Trump responsible for a serious crime after he declined to appear in court.)

And these indictments go into far greater detail than in the process that we use to initiate charges of serious crime.  The accused is told in great detail the case he has to meet.  (It is probable that this accused has not read the indictments and never will.)

And to obtain a conviction, the prosecution will have to persuade another jury that they have proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  In other words, the representatives of the nation in the form of two juries must have found against the accused in accordance with procedures in place before the U S was born.  (In the old days in England, the court read the charges and said to the jury that the accused pleaded not guilty – ‘whereon he has put himself upon his country, which country you are.’)

Now, here’s the kicker.  When I sued big bad targets in civil cases, my central question was : ‘Do I have enough to force the defendant into the witness box?’  That’s when the whole issue is reframed.  And Trump would be one of the worst witnesses ever.  His lawyers know that.  I would be amazed if these detailed indictments do not disclose a prima facie case.  I would be surprised if the prosecution is unable to get its witnesses to live up to their statements of evidence.  That being so, Trump and his lawyers will have a very big bullet to bite.

Finally, I have not heard anything that comes within a bull’s roar of a defence to any charge.