Why the Trump Org Criminal Charges May Open the Indictment Flood Gates: A Matter of Precedent

Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner

Crossover Media Group

Legal, Progressive, Judicial, Politics, Political, Government, Law, News, News Commentary, Justice, Democrats, Justice Department, Liberal

4.8 • 2.6K Ratings

🗓️ 7 July 2021

⏱️ 12 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Other countries prosecute their criminal leaders - Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc. For example, France, South Korea, South Africa and Italy have all prosecuted former leaders for crimes they committed while in office. However, in the United States there is no precedent for prosecuting a criminal former president. Prosecutors generally don't like to take maiden legal voyages, that is, bring a case that is unprecedented. Prosecutors like to have legal precedent as a blueprint. They like to have the comfort and cover of being able to point to an appellate court opinion - legal precedent - and say, "this has been done before, so I am not breaking new legal ground." However, logic and common sense dictate that, if you require precedent to indict a criminal former president then we could NEVER charge a criminal former president. Indeed, the way prosecutors create precedent is by doing something for the first time. The real question is - is there anything prohibiting the prosecution of a former president for crimes he committed while in office. The answer is a definitive NO - there is no law, no statute, no appellate court opinion and no Supreme Court precedent prohibiting the prosecution of a former president. This video discusses prosecutorial considerations in taking a maiden legal voyage - brining a novel case for which there is no legal precedent and relates example of when such novel legal cases have been brought in the courts of Washington, DC. For our newly launched Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise shop, please visit: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkirschner/ Please consider becoming a #TeamJustice patron at: https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschner My podcast, "Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner" can be downloaded where you get your podcasts. Follow me on: Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirschner2 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	So, let's talk about legal precedent, the absence of legal precedent, and why the absence
0:08.4	of legal precedent should not stop the Department of Justice from inditing a criminal
0:15.9	former president, because justice matters.
0:35.8	Hey all, Glenn Kirschner here.
0:38.2	So let's talk about setting legal precedent, doing something for the first time in a court
0:45.0	of law.
0:46.6	I wrote a piece for MSNBC Daily, that's MSNBC's online opinion site, and it was published
0:53.8	yesterday, and here's the title.
0:57.1	Trump organization charges could open the indictment floodgates, and I believe it could,
1:04.7	or at least create a significant crack in the prosecutorial dam, and here's why.
1:13.7	As a prosecutor for 30 years, I sort of know how we operate, right?
1:20.0	No, we're not monolithic, we don't all make identical decisions, but prosecutors tend
1:25.7	to act within certain parameters, or certain boundaries, and one thing I can tell you
1:32.0	is prosecutors don't like doing something for the very first time.
1:37.6	They don't like bringing a case that has no precedent, right?
1:42.5	What we like is having a legal blueprint, something that the appellate courts have already
1:49.6	blessed, right?
1:51.0	It gives us a comfort level, it gives us cover.
1:54.9	If we can point to precedent, we can point to authority where something has been done
2:00.4	before, and the appellate court said, yes, we looked at it, we considered it, it was
2:06.5	lawful, it was constitutional, it was appropriate, and we affirm your judgment.
2:12.5	Your decision to do what you did in the trial court, that's precedent, and prosecutors
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Crossover Media Group, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Crossover Media Group and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.