What is the difference between an illegal act and a pattern?

Professor Alan Dershowitz, whom I respect greatly, wrote an article titled, “President Trump did not obstruct justice“.

The essence of the article is: President Trump had the legal right to fire Comey, so stop pretending he committed a crime.

Here are a few excerpts:

A dangerous argument is now being put forward by some Democratic ideologues: namely that President Trump should be indicted for the crime of obstructing justice because he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Whatever one may think of the President’s decision to fire Comey as a matter of policy, there is no legitimate basis for concluding that the President engaged in a crime by exercising his statutory and constitutional authority to fire director Comey.

For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied bya criminal state of mind. Even assuming that President Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone should never constitute a crime.

I agree with much of Professor Dershowitz’s comments in the original article, though surprisingly he is wrong that a criminal state of mind is necessary for something to be a crime. (Consider speeding. Ignorance of the law is no excuse — “ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”)

Motive and opportunity are prime pieces of evidence. Trump had both.

In any event, I suggest the good professor may be missing important evidentiary factors: Character evidence and circumstantial evidence, both relating to a pattern of activity.

Suppose a man parks every day outside a woman’s home.  No crime there, unless she can demonstrate he is stalking her.

And suppose the man recently had participated in an acrimonious divorce from the woman — a divorce in which he had lost custody of his children and most of his money. No crime, though there may be motive.

And suppose the man told a friend he hated the woman. No crime. And suppose the man recently purchased a chainsaw. Still, no crime.

And then, one day, the police find that the woman was killed with a chainsaw, which was left at the scene, and later found to be of the same brand that the man had purchased.

And the day after the murder, the man stopped parking in front of the woman’s house.

He has washed his clothes so thoroughly that if there were any traces of blood, they would have been eliminated.

Further, the man previously had been convicted of murder, despite his strong denials.

When the man is confronted by a TV reporter, he tells the reporter three conflicting stories about his whereabouts at the time of the murder.

Finally, the man offers employment to the police officers who are investigating the murder.

There would seem to be a great deal of circumstantial evidence. The man has established a pattern of lying, covering up, and committing murder.

At this stage Dershowitz again might say, “there is no legitimate basis for concluding that the man engaged in a crime.”

Donald Trump has patterns, too. He is the most astounding liar, perhaps in the entire history of the White House.  He has told multiple stories about multiple events, and at least three different stories about the firing itself.

During his campaign, he was found to have lied more often than any other candidate. He has been sued thousands of times, and given that extraordinary number, he surely has lied multiple times.

He has established criminality, for which most people would have been jailed, but from which he extricated himself by paying $25 million (Trump University).

He has participated in cover-ups, including telling his voters he would release his tax returns and then refused.

And now Trump has fired the man who was assigned to learn the facts.

At what point then, does a pattern present itself? At what point is character and circumstantial evidence too powerful to be ignored? At what point does Professor Dershowitz allow the public the right to chant, “Lock ‘im up”?

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. I agree with that.  And if (when?) Trump is impeached, it should be based on strong evidence.

Meanwhile, we cannot be naive.  The man still is working the most powerful job in the world. He still is a danger to us all — to the entire world.

Only by chanting “lock ‘im up” can we, the public, force his reluctant political party to do a proper investigation.

The Republicans have ignored all evidence to date, and have remained firm in their support for Trump. They do not exhibit concern about his lies and his prior acts. They do not demonstrate any desire to learn the truth.

Seemingly, they fear only one thing: An angry electorate.

So yes, people, scream “Lock ‘im up,” ’til you’re hoarse. Don’t let this travesty be buried by those who will aid and abet criminality, just to remain in power.

Don’t be lulled by calming, legal words from a professor.

Be angry.  Be damn angry. Make your anger force a real investigation. 

And let’s see those hidden tax returns, too.