It is so interesting how his MAGA supporters and Republicans are spinning Trump's request for legal "compensation." They say that it is justified because the prosecutions against him were "political" implying that they were unfounded.
Let us put aside the issue that Trump probably paid very little for his defense in the first place and focus on the central justification. If an ordinary citizen is taken to trial by the government for a provable crime and am found innocent the government doesn't pay them for their legal defense.
The remedy that law allows is a civil suit against the government that claims damages for MALICIOUS prosecution. But in that case the plaintiff must show that the government knew they were innocent of the crimes charged but prosecuted them anyway. They have even less of a claim if the case was settled, dismissed or withdrawn before the trial.
If this is allowed to stand then any politician who is running for office can claim any criminal charges made against them are merely political. Therefore candidates for office can never be prosecuted because it must be assumed that their political opponents are initiating a malicious prosecution.
BUT the fact is that politicians CAN prosecute other politicians (even for political reasons) and the only thing that really matters is whether there is actual evidence of an underlying crime which can be taken to court and tried. The defendant has the presumption of innocence and the state makes its case and a jury decides. In this case Trump spent $230,000,000.00 mostly trying to avoid going to court and having to defend himself against criminal charges that were more likely than not were supported by evidence which he could not overcome.
By essentially billing his defense fees to the DOJ he is once again making a claim he could never prove in a court.
It is so interesting how his MAGA supporters and Republicans are spinning Trump's request for legal "compensation." They say that it is justified because the prosecutions against him were "political" implying that they were unfounded.
Let us put aside the issue that Trump probably paid very little for his defense in the first place and focus on the central justification. If an ordinary citizen is taken to trial by the government for a provable crime and am found innocent the government doesn't pay them for their legal defense.
The remedy that law allows is a civil suit against the government that claims damages for MALICIOUS prosecution. But in that case the plaintiff must show that the government knew they were innocent of the crimes charged but prosecuted them anyway. They have even less of a claim if the case was settled, dismissed or withdrawn before the trial.
If this is allowed to stand then any politician who is running for office can claim any criminal charges made against them are merely political. Therefore candidates for office can never be prosecuted because it must be assumed that their political opponents are initiating a malicious prosecution.
BUT the fact is that politicians CAN prosecute other politicians (even for political reasons) and the only thing that really matters is whether there is actual evidence of an underlying crime which can be taken to court and tried. The defendant has the presumption of innocence and the state makes its case and a jury decides. In this case Trump spent $230,000,000.00 mostly trying to avoid going to court and having to defend himself against criminal charges that were more likely than not were supported by evidence which he could not overcome.
By essentially billing his defense fees to the DOJ he is once again making a claim he could never prove in a court.
I am pretty sure Pam Blondi will write the check.