Op-ed by Elad Hakim | Photo: Alamy
The United States’ system of justice is supposed to be blind. According to an information sheet discussing the figures of justice:
“One of the most recognized legal symbols visible in the architecture of the Supreme Court Building is the female figure representing Justice, who is depicted in three sculptural groups.
Over time, Justice became associated with scales to represent impartiality and a sword to symbolize power. During the 16th century, Justice was often portrayed with a blindfold. The origin of the blindfold is unclear, but it seems to have been added to indicate the tolerance of, or ignorance to, abuse of the law by the judicial system. Today, the blindfold is generally accepted as a symbol of impartiality, but may be used to signify these other traits in political cartoons.”
The plan against Trump
Sadly, if your name is Donald Trump, blindness in applying the law appears to have taken a back seat to personal animus and political weaponry.
Trump faces multiple indictments in Florida, New York, and Washington, D.C. A fourth indictment in Georgia is expected soon. These indictments could have been brought years ago, but doing so would have stymied the apparent plan to take Trump out of presidential contention.
The plan is simple yet sinister: indict Trump on various charges and in multiple jurisdictions, most of which are strongly anti-Trump, keep Trump busy during the primaries or general election, deplete him of funds, and try to prevent him from taking office by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
An absence of blindness
Other than the Florida case, the cases against Trump have been brought in jurisdictions where anti-Trump animus is high (thereby substantially raising the likelihood of conviction) and where favorable judicial rulings are most likely. These cases would not have been brought against anyone not named Trump, further bolstering the conclusion that these prosecutions are not “blind.”
In New York, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin brought charges against Trump, although his predecessors who reviewed the evidence decided against doing so. Additionally, Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence, who had various “classified records,” are unscathed.
Amazingly, many Democrats who challenged and forcefully spoke out against the results of previous elections were not indicted or charged. These inconsistent decisions do not signify a blind system of justice and reek of personal animus and a vendetta against Trump.
In a blind system
In a blind justice system, people would not be permitted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices in front of their homes without consequence, nor could prosecutors around the country refuse to prosecute certain crimes and let criminals walk free.
For example, when previously discussing Bragg, Gregg Jarrett noted:
“In his progressive manifesto issued the moment he assumed office, he announced his refusal to prosecute certain crimes. For example, he told his staff lawyers to treat armed robbery as a misdemeanor. Retail thefts should be ignored. He refused to bring felony charges in several violent attacks. The requirement of bail was tossed out the window. Prison sentences were discouraged. He handed criminals a roadmap to freedom.”
In a blind system of justice, the judge assigned to a case would not be a concern and would simply follow the law without injecting his or her bias against a particular person or defendant. Procedural time frames would be followed, defendants and their lawyer(s) would be given sufficient time to prepare, trials would not be “rushed,” recusal would occur when necessary, and a personal desire to “get Trump” would not be a factor in any decision.
In a blind system of justice, the city where a defendant faces charges would also be less of a concern, as the venue could possibly be changed to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial. This is not the case when it comes to Trump, who is all but certain to face a hostile and biased jury in Manhattan and in D.C.
In a blind system of justice, there would be serious reservations if charges were brought against a leading political opponent during an election period by left-wing anti-Trump prosecutors, district attorneys, and/or a weaponized and politicized DOJ.
It is not only the fact that prosecutors are charging Trump under circumstances where they would not charge others but the fact that they waited to bring charges until after Trump announced his candidacy for reelection and was dominating all Republican candidates and Biden.
Show me the man and I will find a crime
Justice Robert H. Jackson once stated:
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”
Justice Jackson’s statement was a clear warning about the risks associated with weaponizing criminal laws and the criminal justice system to go after a specific person.
Stated differently, this is the danger when the system and some who are tasked with enforcing its laws, are anything but blind.
Mr. Hakim is an attorney and columnist. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, American Thinker, and other online publications. He is also a guest on OANN’s Tipping Point, and has appeared on Newsmax, Steadfast and Loyal Podcast with Allen West, The Dave Weinbaum Show, and Real America’s Voice. The views expressed herein are the author’s own and do not constitute legal advice.