Some of the island’s promising boxers will compete in the second Bermuda Boxing Development League tournament at Whitney Institute today [May 4]. The event is expected to feature sanctioned fights, masters, corporate and charity bouts, and open sparring for elite and youth competitors. It runs from noon to 4 pm. The BBF hopes to hold […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Several of the island’s up and comping boxers showcased their skills in the second Bermuda Boxing Federation Development League tournament at Whitney Institute on Saturday [May 4]. In the exhibition bouts, Yannik Dill, of Controversy Boxing Gym [CBG], fought Kallan Todd, of the Bermuda Sanshou Association [BSA], Enzi Johnstone faced BSA […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Bermudian boxer Saundre “Dash” Simmons has described himself as a “road warrior” as he prepares for his first fight outside the United States against Victor Aceves in Tijuana, Mexico, on Sunday [May 19]. Although Simmons will step into a ring on foreign soil for the first time, the cruiserweight has fought […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Boxer Nikki Bascome insists he is still as hungry as ever as he gears up for his professional bout against American Rashad Kilpatrick at The Shed in Dockyard next Saturday [May 25]. Bascome, who will face Rashad in an eight-round welterweight contest, has not fought since defeating Filipino Alvin Lagumbay on […]

Boxer Nikki Bascome claimed a unanimous points win over American Rashad Kilpatrick in the co-main event at The Shed in Dockyard yesterday [May 25]. Bascome dominated his opponent throughout the eight-round welterweight contest to improve his record in the paid ranks to 14 wins and one defeat. The 33-year-old wrote on Instagram: “Thank you God […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Boxer Nikki Bascome says he has more fights left in the tank after his unanimous points win over American Rashad Kilpatrick in the co-main event at The Shed in Dockyard on Saturday [May 25]. Bascome improved his professional record to 13 wins from 14 bouts after a controlled display in his […]

The record-breaking boyband’s second album ticks every fan’s boxes.

Knowingly titled, impossibly bouncy and genuinely likeable.

Sandé’s first live album features all the hits – but there’s little edge on display.

If you can get past a divisive lead vocal, a world of glorious pop-rap awaits.

Minimum wage is going up in some provinces across the country, but is it enough to combat rising inflation?

The 2022 FIFA World Cup is well underway, with Canada’s men’s team making its first appearance in the tournament since 1986. The host country Qatar continues to face global scrutiny for its criminalization of homosexuality and treatment of migrant workers.

KPN heeft een volgende stap gezet op weg naar haar doelstelling om 80 procent van Nederland in 2026 te voorzien van een glasvezelaansluiting van het bedrijf. Met de overname van het glasvezelnetwerk van Primevest Capital Partners voegt KPN ruim 127.000 glasvezelaansluitingen aan haar netwerk toe.

A calmer-than-usual concept set from the virtuoso saxophonist.

James refines his sound on this Blue Note debut, with impressive results.

A pale live release, recommended for the hardcore only.

Hunter’s latest cuts recall the golden ages of soul and blues.

The most exciting and substantial Coleman release of the last few years.

An ambitious “symphony” with its roots in techno, recalling classical minimalists.

Proves that potential mass appeal need not come at the expense of creative flair.

A stars-bound journey away from the drudgery of everyday ordinariness.

A frequently beautiful second LP from the LA producer.

A soulful soundtrack that transcends the language barrier on its emotional journey.

A crowd pleaser featuring the cream of the industry’s playback singers.

NTT DATA Business Solutions has announced that Guernsey Ports has embarked on a strategic partnership to implement Hexagon's Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) solution.

Business group Logistics UK has expressed its members’ mixed emotions about the new government’s first Budget. While the industry is reassured by the freeze in fuel duty, the hike in National Insurance contributions from employers and higher business rates, amongst other tax rises, will be a real challenge for a sector that operates on small margins.

By Aviram Ganor, General Manager EMEA, Riskified.

Retailers have plenty to keep them awake at night, whether it’s enticing consumers to shop,  utdoing their competition or – most worrying of all – how to ensure their long-term survival in a rocky economy.

New thinking in online fulfilment order picking that combines long established warehouse ‘wave’ picking techniques with state-of-the-art sorting robots is delivering eye-catching improvements in picking rates, says Frazer Watson, Global Vice President of Rainbow Dynamics.

Made Smarter, the movement accelerating the digital transformation of SME manufacturers, recently reached a major milestone - backing North West companies to invest £25m in new technologies.

The document by the Justice Department helped provide an after-the-fact rationale for harsh procedures used by C.I.A. on high-level leaders of Al Qaeda.

Tom Vilsack may not have the name recognition of John Edwards or Richard A. Gephardt, but make no mistake: He wants the job badly.

The Green Party of the United States rebuffed efforts by Ralph Nader to win its endorsement for president by voting Saturday to make David Cobb its 2004 presidential candidate.

Bill Clinton certainly qualifies as a liberal icon. Yet in many respects, his record belies the liberal tag.

In 2020, pivotal events ushered in a season of antiracism rhetoric in the U.S. The brutal deaths of unarmed black Americans at the hands of police officers and white vigilantes, and the disproportionately harsh impact of COVID-19 in the black American community, launched the nation into a discussion about systemic racism. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the 2020 antiracism discourse was merely seasonal rather than enduring, and unlikely to result in meaningful change. 

Black American’s vulnerability in the face of systemic racism is not limited to death, sickness and injury as a result of COVID-19 or antiblack bias in police departments. Our vulnerability is precipitated by things like lack of access to nonpredatory financial services. This is just one of the contexts that compromise black Americans’ economic survival. Unacknowledged systemic racism destroys the wealth and wellbeing of black individuals, families and communities, sometimes causing working and middle-class black Americans to plummet into poverty. As 2020 comes to a close, an election that threatened democracy in the U.S. and the existential threats of an uncontrolled pandemic, eclipse a system of intentional antiblack racism on the part of the financial institutions that engaged in predatory mortgage lending in the years leading up to and beyond the 2008 recession. It is now well documented that lenders, brokers, and mortgage servicers engaged in conduct that was fraudulent and misleading. The mortgage market charged excessively high rates and fees, engaged in high-pressure sales tactics, imposed unnecessarily harsh prepayment penalties, and distorted loan structures to avoid the application of consumer protection statutes.  But, more than a decade later, many black Americans are still fighting to prevent financial institutions from taking away their homes. 

In a book I coauthored with Dr. Janis Sarra, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, Predatory Lending and the Destruction of the African American Dream (Cambridge University Press, 2020), we describe new iterations of predation that continue to target black consumers years after financial institutions settled litigation that alleged pervasive fraud on their part for steering black Americans into predatory subprime loans. But these renovated predatory practices are obscured by the nation’s focus on COVID-19 and a vitriolic election season. Meanwhile, more black Americans will lose their homes even after investing all or most of their wealth in attempts to keep them. This reality requires the calls for moratoriums on mortgage foreclosures to be answered in the affirmative.

On December 1st, 2020, Nasdaq filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt additional listing rules requiring enhanced board diversity and disclosure of firm diversity efforts.  The new listing rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to have on their board of directors, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+.  If the firm does not meet this listing requirement, it must explain why they do not have at least two diverse directors sitting on their board.  Additionally, the new listing rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics regarding its board of directors.  Nasdaq defines underrepresented minorities to include Black or African America, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races or ethnicities.  Smaller reporting companies and foreign companies have additional flexibility in satisfying these new listing requirements by seating at least two female directors.  These new listing rules require approval from the SEC.

NASDAQ's stated goal for requiring diversity among its listed companies board makeups is to provide the investing public with a "better understanding of the company's current board composition and enhance investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity in the context of selecting directors, either by including at least two diverse directors on their boards or explaining their rationale for not meeting that objective." To support this new listing requirement, Nasdaq pointed to over 24 studies that found a link between diverse board and more robust financial performance with better corporate governance.  Under this proposal, Nasdaq-listed companies are required to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics within one year of the SEC's approval of the rule.

CNN reports that Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman stated, "Nasdaq's purpose is to champion inclusive growth and prosperity to power stronger economies." Non compliance by Nasdaq-listed companies could lead to delisting.  

Nasdaq's move is part of a growing momentum to see that corporate board diversity is taken seriously across the United States.  California has for two years been requiring gender diversity on corporate boards and has recently begun requiring racial and ethnic diversity on California boards as well.  Goldman Sachs has recently announced that it will require any company that it assists in taking public must include at least one diverse board member. 

The Corporate Justice Blog has long advocated for board diversity as a priority for expanding human capital and realizing greater financial benefits for the firms and its shareholders. We argue that a commitment to diversifying the board, both in gender and racial diversity as well as worldview diversity enhances the performance of the corporations that so commit.  See here, here, here and here.

hat tip:  Deepali Lal, 3L, Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law 

photo: courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Stellantis, the automobile conglomerate that owns Jeep, formed recently from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot, defended its use of the Cherokee name claiming "our vehicle names have been carefully chosen and nurtured over the years to honor and celebrate Native American people for their nobility, prowess and pride."  This argument echoes the same arguments used for decades by Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Football Team (formerly the Redskins) and the owners of the Cleveland Indians (who have also recently agreed to change the team name after phasing out the offensive Chief Wahoo logo a few years ago).  For Stellantis, the Grand Cherokee is one of Jeep's most popular models selling more than 200,000 units in 2020.

Suzan Shown Harjo, long an activist fighting against cultural misappropriation and offensive use of American Indian imagery, is not buying the "honor" argument.  "Of course it's not an honor" states Harjo, "That’s the assumption that was made by so many people about our land, water, gold, silver, copper — name a mineral. Now it’s about our imagery, our names and our cultural icons . . . When does this thievery stop?"  

The Cherokee Nation describes itself as a sovereign tribal government. "Upon settling in Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) after the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee people established a new government in what is now the city of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. A constitution was adopted on September 6, 1839, 68 years prior to Oklahoma’s statehood.  Today, the Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the United States with more than 380,000 tribal citizens worldwide. More than 141,000 Cherokee Nation citizens reside within the tribe’s reservation boundaries in northeastern Oklahoma. . . . The Cherokee Nation is committed to protecting our inherent sovereignty, preserving and promoting Cherokee culture, language and values, and improving the quality of life for the next seven generations of Cherokee Nation citizens."

Whether Jeep drops the moniker will likely depend on whether the same kind of financial pressure is brought against Jeep and Stellantis similar to what was brought to bear on Daniel Snyder and the Washington Football Team and corporate entities like Aunt Jemima, Land-O-Lakes and Uncle Ben's.  Each of these entities have been persuaded to change/drop racist depictions and monikers because of the economic pressure of threatened boycotts and sponsorship withdrawals, particularly in light of the 2020 summer of protests following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

hat tip: Savannah Johnston, Arkansas Little Rock Bowen School of Law, 3L

images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Some of the most significant corporate commitments have come from JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft, AMEX, Bank of America, PayPal, Salesforce and Chase.  These large corporate commitments do not account for the other minority-focused investments, such as JP Morgan's initiative to lend more openly to minority owned businesses and black and brown home purchasers.  The corporate giving trend is fueled by changing expectations of younger employees and progressive consumers that expect corporations to become serious about corporate responsibilities to social issues and causes.  Advocates argue that these corporate commitments will not be enough to achieve racial equity in housing, employment and policing, but acknowledge that if these corporations are serious about their commitments, that it can mark an important start.  "'The world is changing, and the expectations of how companies engage are changing,' said Brandee McHale, Citi’s head of community investing and development."

ABC News reports that "[s]ince late May, Grabois said, financial commitments by companies to racial equity causes have grown 'exponentially larger' than any other cause other than COVID-19. A report by McKinsey & Company, which tracked corporate responses from May to October, found that of the top 1,000 U.S. companies, 18% made internal commitments, like diversifying their hiring, and 22% pledged to promote racial equity through donations or other means."

Whether corporate giving to racial equity causes results in systemic change and reform remains to be seen.  Holding corporations to their commitments will likely be an important undertaking.

photo courtesy of wikimedia commons

The Biden administration's nomination of and subsequent Senate confirmation of Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland is a monumentally important moment in our nation's history.  Secretary Haaland becomes the first Cabinet level Secretary of Native American descent in the history of the nation.  This after Ms. Haaland served as the first native Congressperson (along with Sharice Davids of Kansas, both elected in 2018) in U.S. history.  This nomination and confirmation is critical for many reasons, including according to Secretary Haaland herself:  “A voice like mine has never been a Cabinet secretary or at the head of the Department of Interior,” she wrote on Twitter before the vote. “Growing up in my mother’s Pueblo household made me fierce. I’ll be fierce for all of us, our planet, and all of our protected land.”

The New York Times reports:  "Representative Deb Haaland of New Mexico made history on Monday when the Senate confirmed her as President Biden’s secretary of the Interior, making her the first Native American to lead a cabinet agency.  Ms. Haaland in 2018 became one of the first two Native American women elected to the House. But her new position is particularly redolent of history because the department she now leads has spent much of its history abusing or neglecting America’s Indigenous people.  Beyond the Interior Department’s responsibility for the well-being of the nation’s 1.9 million Native people, it oversees about 500 million acres of public land, federal waters off the United States coastline, a huge system of dams and reservoirs across the Western United States and the protection of thousands of endangered species."

Secretary Haaland said the following at her Senate confirmation hearing:  “You’ve heard the Earth referred to as Mother Earth, it’s difficult to not feel obligated to protect this land. And I feel every Indigenous person in the country understands that.”

Again, per the NY Times: "Ms. Haaland will quite likely assume a central role in realizing Mr. Biden’s promise to make racial equity a theme in his administration. Ms. Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo who identifies herself as a 35th-generation New Mexican, will assume control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education, where she can address the needs of a population that has suffered from abuse and dislocation at the hands of the United States government for generations, and that has been disproportionately devastated by the coronavirus."

A hearty congratulations to Secretary Haaland on this momentous appointment, to President Biden for the foresight to seize this moment, and for an appointment that was far too long in the making.

photo in the public domain

 

All times are Eastern.  

To register and attend by Zoom for free, click here.

 The United States invented the Rule of Law through the fragmentation of sovereignty among 51 sovereign authorities each with three branches of government. It further protects individual rights from state and federal infringement. This effectively created a legal system that could all state actors to account before law. While still imperfect in many important ways, Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to the Rule of Law particularly since January 6, 2021.

Today in America the rule of law faces severe challenges and may well face a total sunset. If so, the Supreme Court of the United States played a central role as accomplice. Most notably, today granted review (certiorari) on the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. That question in the abstract may hold academic interest, but the answer lies in many disputes in the future over decades or even centuries. 

Prof. Laurence Tribe, a legendary Constitutional Law scholar, explains the effect of this action:

The Supreme Court effectively gives Trump the potential to now escape any accountability for his role in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. This order puts partisan politics above the Rule of Law. A very dark day for America.

Today, the United States Supreme Court obliterated the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, in Trump v. Anderson. The language of this section appears simple enough:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court held that: "the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3." More specifically, the Court held that only Congress may enforce the disqualification of section 3 and that states could only enforce the provision against state candidates for office and state officeholders. Otherwise the nation would face a risk of a patchwork of state outcomes. This, despite the fact that in 1868, shortly after the provision became law, the Governor of the State of Georgia disqualified a federal candidate for office. (See fn 3).

Further, if "only" Congress holds power to enforce section 3 then why did the drafters of the Amendment just insert an "only" in the section granting Congress power. The Court needs that "only" and it simply does not exist. Rather than apply the plain meaning the Court instead pretends there is an only when there is no such word. Section 5 plainly states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Court did violence to the statute to protect Donald Trump.

Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist explains:

The Supreme Court did leave one last avenue for accountability under law that the Biden Administration or DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith could use to disqualify Trump. 18 U.S.C. section 2383 provides:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Court cited this section with approval. It would provide a uniform federal solution. And, it arises from an exercise of Congressional power. Even this Court (which works overtime to protect Trump) would uphold such an action. 

Why did Jack Smith (or Attorney General Merrick Garland before him) fail to use this section against the obvious insurrectionist Donald Trump? Or, alternatively, why not bring such an action tomorrow morning? Colorado would provide a form indictment and a trial map, complete with comprehensive evidence?

So, the Court today shifted the spotlight to DOJ with today's SCOTUS ruling. Agreement or disagreement with the Court's opinion no longer matters. Many excellent arguments support the use of section 3 in precisely the manner of Colorado. All moot.

Why did DOJ fail (and continue to fail) to seek disqualification through a criminal action a criminal action? 

The most disturbing and vivid reality of all of this: law failed to hold Trump to account as an oath breaking insurrectionist despite many available pathways.

 

 

 I just published a new law review article with the Seattle University Law Review entitled: Students for Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action and Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity? The article can be downloaded here: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol47/iss4/7/. Here is the abstract:

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater institutional efficacy, including possible race-neutral alternatives. The programs also failed to break down stereotypes through the introduction of a critical mass to empower diverse voices. The programs thereby resembled prohibited quotas or racial balancing. As such, the programs at issue violated Grutter, which still governs race-based affirmative action in college admissions. More importantly, the Roberts court paved the way for more expansive diversity-based admissions programs by permitting institutions to value individual racial experiences, which authentically further an institution’s mission and interests. After SFFA, the use of race as a factor could well face time limits. Contrastingly, individualized racial experiences may benefit college applicants at institutions that embrace diversity in an authentic way without facing any time limitation. Further, institutions with distinct missions may value diversity in a race-conscious way but without any racial preference. In sum, the Roberts Court guides the use of race in college admissions toward a race-neutral, diversity-based paradigm such that institutions may still unlock the empirically proven benefits of cultural diversity with only de minimus interference from the courts. This approach rests upon a powerful policy basis that leads to superior innovation, macroeconomic outcomes, social cohesion and, therefore, superior national security for the United States. This approach thus could support a powerful interest convergence.

The article shows that Supreme Court did not overrule its prior affirmative action precedents, and in fact paved the way for universities to embrace cultural and cognitive diversity to enrich their educational missions. This is important because the case has been widely misconstrued.

My next article will extend the Court's holding to corporate DEI efforts and demonstrate that such efforts are not only remain lawful but also essential to rational human resources management.

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.