Supreme Court decisions, and one due next week, vindicate Trump of all charges in all cases currently under investigation, adjudication

WASHINGTON, DC - In the old television game show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire,” contestants had the option of utilizing a “lifeline” to help them answer questions. Last week and this, the Supreme Court unwittingly (or not) threw a lifeline to former President Donald Trump after a couple of huge decisions, with another one due this week. 

The first decision came on June 29 in the case of Erlinger v. United States. That case involved a January 6 Capitol protester who received an enhanced sentence which went above and beyond those of a crime for which a jury convicts a person. In the underlying case, Paul Erlinger was exposed to a potential life sentence as a felon, who was found illegally in possession of a firearm after a federal judge applied predicate crimes, which permitted enhanced sentencing. 

The problem in Erlinger was that the so-called predicate crimes were determined by the high court to no longer apply under provisions used by the judge, and were not considered by the jury during their deliberations and subsequent conviction of Erlinger. The court’s decision could mean that dozens, if not hundreds of January 6 arrestees who received enhanced sentences from leftist judges could see their sentences reduced or have their cases dismissed. 

Erlinger could also benefit the former president. If the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger is any guide, it seems apparent that the majority is expressing a high deal of skepticism in the government’s use of enhanced sentencing procedures. That could spell the intent of the high court to expand on this skepticism in a case being ruled on this week, Fischer v. United States. 

In that case, the Biden Department of Justice used a financial crimes law passed in response to the Enron scandal and morphed it into an “obstruction of an official proceeding” violation in order to implement enhanced sentences for January 6 Capitol trespassers. That decision is expected this week. 

Moreover, that decision found that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes. In the so-called “hush money” case in Manhattan, Judge Juan Merchan, an anti-Trump political hack, issued jury instructions that confused most legal experts, explaining that jurors did not have to agree on the specific underlying crime, but just that the former president allegedly violated one of them. 

The ruling by the Supreme Court will likely serve as one of the avenues of appeal for the Trump legal team in seeking to overturn his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, a case where Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg twisted the criminal statutes like a pretzel to find a federal election law “violation” that elevated a New York state misdemeanor to a felony and therefore within the statute of limitations. 

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Bragg has postponed Trump’s sentencing, scheduled for this week. Meanwhile if the Fischer decision comes down as the Supreme Court appears to be signaling it will, the case against President Trump related to the Capitol siege will also be hanging by a thread. 

In what is possibly an even bigger decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that official communications between a president and government officials, pertaining to official acts, cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial. That decision could also torpedo Bragg’s case, with some legal experts saying that it would rule some of the evidence presented by Bragg inadmissible, which could lead to either a mistrial or an outright dismissal by Merchan. Given Merchan’s political activism, however, that is unlikely. That may not matter, however, if Trump wins his appeal.

In a letter to Merchan asking for an extension of the sentencing, Bragg wrote: 

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Bragg stated. “We respectfully request a deadline of July 24, 2024–two weeks after defendant’s requested deadline–to file and serve a response.” 

Merchan has set a September 18, 2024 date for sentencing. That is six weeks before the November presidential election. 

Clearly, if we were living in the United States pre-Biden, none of these cases would have been brought in the first place. It is clear that this is nothing but Soviet-style lawfare. If Trump was not running for president, Biden couldn’t be bothered, however since the former president presents such an existential threat to the dementia-ridden Biden, he has apparently unleashed the full authority of the United States Department of Justice. 

Based on these recent (and upcoming) Supreme Court decisions, it is clear that President Trump has been vindicated of all charges against him in the four cases he is presently under investigation and/or prosecution for and the courts should likewise see it that way.