Facing four criminal indictments and a variety of civil lawsuits, former President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the United States' courts and judicial system as "rigged" against him. And he described Justice Juan Merchan's courtroom as a "kangaroo court," claiming that he never stood a chance with the Manhattan jury that found him guilty on 34 criminal counts in his hush money/falsified business records trial.
But law professor Ray Brescia, who teaches at the Albany Law School in Upstate New York, denounces that claim as absurd in a biting op-ed published by the Daily Beast on June 7.
If anything, Brescia argues, the courts and judicial system have been overly kind to the former president.
READ MORE: Trump's 'intellectual capacity' questioned after comparison to interview with Biden
"Minutes after a jury of Donald Trump's peers found him guilty on all 34 felony counts," Brescia argues, "the former president trotted out the same tired line about the system being rigged that he seems to air whenever he loses, whether it's a court case, an election, or even at the Emmy Awards. For Trump and his allies, those complaints are generally reserved for judges and juries and voters when things don't go his way. But that's not how the law, or the rule of law, works."
The law professor adds, "What Trump really means when he says something is rigged is that he lost. However, there are several legal forums where he is doing just fine — and he doesn't think those courts are rigged, or at least not rigged the wrong way."
Brescia goes on to cite examples of the courts being favorable or generous to Trump, including Florida-based Judge Aileen Cannon holding up special counsel Jack Smith's federal Mar-a-Lago documents case indefinitely.
In Georgia, Brescia notes, an appeals court has "agreed to hear an appeal of the trial court's decision to reject the effort to disqualify" Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis "for her romantic relationship with her chief prosecutor" in her election interference/RICO case.
READ MORE:'MAGA imperial presidency': Analysis reveals the radical 'theocracy' central to Project 2025
"At the U.S. Supreme Court," the law professor observes, "the body jumped into action when Colorado sought to keep the former president off the ballot in that state for his alleged participation in the events of January 6 under the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution…. Trump won, with the Court's justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents siding with Trump, putting partisanship aside."
The High Court, Brescia points out, has held up Smith's election interference case by agreeing to consider Trump's presidential immunity argument.
"Trump is fine with the outcome of legal proceedings when he wins, or even when they simply accede to his political goals," Brescia argues. "The only good judge is one who rules in his favor. That's not how our system of justice works, however, and it's certainly not how the rule of law works."
READ MORE:'Opting out': Major retailer refuses to sponsor GOP convention to nominate Trump
Ray Brescia's full op-ed for the Daily Beast is available at this link (subscription required).