Trump’s Judges Aren’t Using Legal Reasoning, They’re following political instructions.

Even if you don’t happen to be a lawyer, law professor or legal scholar, it isn’t hard to see a big problem with many of the published decisions made by judges who are hearing defense arguments and motions made by President Trump, in the continued “lawfare” cases being used by the DNC (not the United States) to persecute him financially, and block him politically.

There are a number of these judicial positions that are out in the press.

I’d like to focus on just one: the most recent case in Georgia involving free speech.

I’m not going to write up a “case review” that is readily available from several professional critics involving substantive and procedural law. What I want to point out here, rather, is that the government’s case, and the judge’s opinion stemming from it, rest on systematic logical fallacy.

The prosecutor’s entire argument, parroted by the judge, consists of mere assertion, without any evidence standards, because the government can’t prove the charges — they can only keep repeating their claims over and over. That is why they are obsessed with President Trump’s “intent,” and his “state of mind.” The prosecution’s entire case must rest on a fallacy of assertion.

What is a fallacy of assertion? In the spirit of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who often stated that a dictionary was among his best judicial tools, here are a few definitions:

1. Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – “a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.”

Case in point. I am a prosecutor. I say...

“Your Honor, this person is guilty of the crimes he has committed as charged (fill in whatever you want to make up), because he is an evil person, and has been all of his life. He has never shown remorse for the crimes he has committed. I have a grand jury indictment to back up my claims.”

That’s all I got. So he has to be guilty.

The title is kinda screwy. The first idea it brings to mind is that it is talking about judges Trump appointed - “Trump’s Judges” implies that idea most of all.

One word would have corrected that, and it would have gone like this - Judges Trying Trump Are Following Political Instructions Not Legal Reasoning.

It reall is “Judges Trying Trump” and not “Trump’s Judges”.

In the Georgia case, some of the “counts” involve speech which in and of itself is protected by the 1st amendment. The prosecution asserts that the “speech” elements were made in support of a criminal conspiracy to insert a slate of electors illegally. The Defense would like to pick off the speech elements so that the whole fabric of the case unravels. In the context of this, the Judge’s comments were not unreasonable.

What needs doing is to destroy the central element the case depends upon. Was it illegal for Trump’s side to: petition the Ga Sec of State to look for illegal votes; urge the legislature to meet, examine the facts, and appoint electors as the Constitution provides; and to use free speech to promote the view that Trump had been cheated?

One Defendant’s attorney approached this, pointing out that at the time the “official” slate of electors was certified, Ga law prohibited their selection because litigation about the vote remained before the courts and unresolved by the time of a drop dead date.

I’m not sure where this went, or if there is a pending motion on this yet to be considered. Resolving this matter of law should be the priority of the Judge and Defense, since it a matter of law. Then there is the question of whether the election really was fatally flawed. Much evidence suggests that votes were counted that should not have been, in quantities that trigger the threshold for the election to be voided and a new one held.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.