Courts weaponised

Why using the courts to pursue political opponents in the United States will not end well for anyone.

Like many with an interest in politics and foreign affairs, I have been following the recent Trump court case in New York.  I am now following what I suggest is a ‘counter case’, this time against Hunter Biden.

For me, both cases highlight a growing problem in the United States – the weaponising of the courts for political purposes.

I am no legal expert, nor particularly worried about the persons involved as such.  Put another way, I am not taking sides with either Trump or Biden.  Instead, the dynamics in play should be of concern when we consider the trajectory of democracy in the United States.

The case in New York against Trump is so politically motivated that it is beyond a joke.  Sure, there are some whose disdain – or derangement – of Trump is such that all these various political factors can be ignored.   A District Attorney (think the equivalent of a Crown Prosecutor here in New Zealand) who actively campaigned for the job so as to ‘get Trump’.  A case deliberately held in a New York borough that had the lowest voter turnout for Trump in the last election.  And a trial based effectively around accounting honesty.  I don’t wish to diminish financial crime, but thirty four felonies based on this is quite the stretch.  If you know anything about the contradictory and complex financial and tax law in the USA, then you know just about every citizen has committed a crime in some way!  Ultimately, the case was about generating any conviction so as to name a political opponent as a felon. 

The same is true I think of Hunter Biden.  To those who oppose his Presidential father, Hunter is a gift from heaven.   His crime is falsely obtaining a firearm and then some related issues, notably around his drug use.  Again, not to diminish these, but the case is so conflated that again we see political motivations strongly at play.

Simply put, Democrats and Republicans are using the court system to score political points, damage each other, and ideally remove those in opposition to them.  In doing so they undermine the rule of law, the neutrality of the courts, and ultimately the democratic system.

The most egregious does remain the recent New York case against Trump.  Again, put your views of him aside.  He is the leader of the opposition in the United States.  This does not give him immunity but as we look at the case in New York, the political motivation to damage him is beyond doubt.  Imagine Chris Hipkins being put on trial here for not filling out a tax return properly or sending former MP, Michael Wood (and a host of other MPs), to court for their wrongly completing their pecuniary interest forms last year.  While for the latter the fault was clear, I think most New Zealanders would feel sending him to court would have been a massive step too far and would be clearly seen as trying to discredit - or remove - a political opponent if those pursuing the case were National aligned in some way.

As other commentators have noted, the removing of political opponents on trumped up charges is something we expect to see in ‘banana republics’.   It’s what we have seen in Russia, Pakistan, and Brazil amongst others. Joe Biden is clearly delighted and expect to see him use the court case and ‘felon’ line frequently. 

Where do things go from here?  Well, firstly, I expect we will see more cases.  For Democrats who have militated for this court case and result against Trump, they may wish to do the thought experiment of what the Republicans will do in response.  The sword cuts both ways.  Democrats send Trump to court, then why not Republicans to do the same?  The first counter-shot has been fired, with Hunter Biden.

There are numerous cases that can be levelled against pretty much every President:

Biden with not disclosing he kept top secret documents, clearly against the law.  Obama could stand accused of the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen in Syria, Anwar Al-Aulaqi.  Instead of a trial for this citizen’s crimes, Obama authorised a missile strike. Obama’s campaign was also implicated for not reporting millions of dollars of donations, yet was only hit with a fine. Hilary Clinton was also caught for not disclosing funding and fined something like $10k NZ dollars.  Years prior, a Democratic Senator, John Edwards, stood accused of using his campaign monies to cover up an affair during his presidential bid.  While indicted, his situation was never fully pursued due to an initial mistrial.  Then of course, we could raise George Bush Jr, with the charges of war crimes relating to how he handled the Iraq War.  The list goes on.

Again, the point is not for us to argue the merit or otherwise of such cases.  It is just that almost every senior political figure could be hauled before the courts on some charge – and as we have seen in New York with the Trump case, you can create a dynamic to bring about the result you want.  Never forget, many key positions in the United States (e.g. District Attorneys) are voted in on either a Democrat or Republican ticket.  As is evident in New York, you just make sure the prosecutor, judge, jury, and others are aligned to your political view.  I fear the same is true in the Hunter Biden case.

These last few weeks should alarm everyone with an interest in law and democracy within the United States.  The trajectory is not positive.  Instead of the Democrats taking on Trump politically, they have sought to discredit him via the courts.  Republicans are focusing in on family members and not the politician himself (in this case, President Biden).  It’s cheap, nasty, dangerous, and doesn’t bode well.

CHECK OUT MY LATEST MEDIA

You can check out my latest radio show, that aired last Friday on RCR. I chatted with Nick Hanne from the Free Speech Union as well as historian, Dr Paul Moon, about his new book on Ans Westra and why events of the past remain relevant today.

I host my radio show, Speak Free, every Friday from 10am to midday - so tune in!

You can also check out my latest podcast for Family First. I sit down with Dr Joanna Howe to talk about her pro-life advocacy. She’s a Rhodes Scholar; has a doctorate in law from Oxford University; a Professor of Law at Adelaide University; and a mother of five! She has a great social media presence and a passionate advocate for life issues. You can check out our chat below:

You can also check out my latest Facebook Live. I go live every Tuesday morning at 8am and importantly, take questions and comments from those online. So join the chat!

I also did a Live with Bob McCoskrie where we unpacked the Budget. We discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly! You can view here.

So lots on and as always, let me know your views and comments.