Uncharted territory in court and on campus

The two big stories du jour are 1) the continuing campus assault on sanity, brought to you by the pro-terrorist “death-to-America-Death-to-Israel” lobby, and 2) the circus of the nationwide legal manhunt against the once and future president of the United States, Donald Trump.

Regarding the former, this video showing two Columbia students displaying their solidarity with brave protestors at NYU sums up one portion of the insanity:

Interviewer: Why are you protesting?
Protester #1: I don’t know. I’m pretty sure there’s something about Israel [turns to friend] Why are we protesting?
Protester #2: I wish I was more educated.
Protester #1: I’m not either.

File that under “Clueless Overprivileged College Ignoramuses” or (apologies to Tennyson) “In the Spring a Young Girl’s Fancy Lightly Turns to Thoughts of Protest.”

Much darker is the current of — well, I was going to say “antisemitism,” but really it is snarling, anti-civilizational hatred, the objects of which are incidentally Jews and Israel, but more broadly are America and “the West” generally. Emblematic was the mob of Yale students on Beinecke Plaza shouting “Viva, Viva Palestina” as they tore down an American flag and cheered when it hit the ground.

Even more disturbing was the deployment of “human chains” to exclude Jewish students from campus at Yale, Columbia and elsewhere. “We have a Zionist at the entrance of our encampment,” shouted a student at Columbia, instructing the mob to form a chain to keep him out. Meanwhile Columbia deactivated the pass card of an outspoken Jewish professor because he had criticized the pro-Hamas protesters on campus. The images from these elite colleges were frightening reminiscent of similar episodes from the 1930s in Germany.

The unfolding story of what is happening on the campuses of our elite colleges is sobering. The current of viciousness and unthinking sloganeering, so at odds with the stated purpose of these pampered institutions, is breathtaking.

Also breathtaking is the whole-of-government assault on one man, Donald Trump. As I write, two big cases are before the Supreme Court. One, hailing from ashes of Enron’s collapse, has to do with whether a statute devised to criminalize the willful destruction of documents can be deployed against people like the January 6 protesters, many of whom were accused of “obstructing an official proceeding,” just as those Enron executives were accused of doing. Except, of course, the cases are wildly different. Many observers expect the Court to find for the defendant, in which case, Donald Trump, too, will see some of the charges against him evaporate.

The other case has to do with presidential immunity. When the issue was raised by Trump, people tended to scoff. But then people began to speculate about what might happen if presidential immunity were circumscribed. Would Barack Obama, say, be open to prosecution for killing two Americans in a drone attack? Would Joe Biden be liable for the murder of Laken Riley, who was killed by an illegal immigrant, present in the country only because of his administration’s border policies? Wouldn’t every past president be open to prosecution by his successor? And would that transform the presidency into a ceremonial office, whose occupants would be overcautious to the point of timidity?

Most observers believe that the Court will find for Trump by a 5-4 or possibly a 6-3 margin. But it will not necessarily be smooth sailing then. It seems likely that the Court will say that the president has immunity — but only for his official acts. Were Trump’s actions with respect to the January 6 jamboree official acts or private acts? Any bets?

Since the case is likely to go back to the Obama-appointed DC judge Tanya Chutkan, we can bet that she will say “private acts” and endeavor to convict him. Trump would than appeal, but the appeal, I believe, would go to a three-judge panel in Washington, i.e., to another thoroughly biased left-wing kangaroo court. Trump could then appeal to the Supreme Court again, but the Court might well refuse to revisit the case. That would bring us well into the fall, maybe past the election. What happens then?

No one knows. We are deep into uncharted territory. I have a suggestion, though. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court contrive some way to short circuit this appalling vendetta, this unprecedented political persecution of a popular presidential candidate who has the enmity of the regime but the love of the common people? How could they do this? Easy. Impose the world’s greatest change of venue. Be creative. In order to save “Our Democracy,” let the people be the jury. Let the voters decide. It’s a novel idea, I admit, but nothing else has worked.