Category: Politics

Usually I feel comfortable talking about the politics and legality of the various Trump indictments, based on the many reliable pundits out there willing to comment thereupon. But now we’re talking about a state indictment, and not any state, but Georgia. With a Georgia prosecutor, judge, and jury, under a Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. Good luck! There is no way I am going to read ninety-eight pages comprising forty-one counts against nineteen co-conspirators, then start into what it all means in Georgia!

So in this seemingly unending series about the former President’s legal troubles, I will concentrate on a few of the externals to the charges and trial, and more on the ramifications.

First, despite what you may hear from the defense, Fani Willis has a long, solid history as a prosecutor. She may have political motivations (see Shapiro, Josh), but that doesn’t mean she isn’t competent. She is.

Second, you’ll hear reference to all kinds of silly comments in the charging documents, citing meetings and phone calls and the like. No, those things aren’t illegal, but if you use them to do something illegal, they can be cited as evidence, especially of conspiracy.

Third, state and federal governments can try a person for the same crime because they are separate sovereigns, thus it is not double-jeopardy. But the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has at times held that when such a case exists, it is proper for the federal case to proceed rather than the state one. Here we have them marching in parallel. No one short of the Supreme Court will decide on this point, so look to that outcome (an appeal all the way to SCOTUS, if Trump et al are convicted). I’m not saying SCOTUS will overturn, just that this is a rare case where a form of double-jeopardy could play a role.

Finally, many (but not all) the charges in Georgia also involve whether the President and his co-conspirators knew they were wrong. So once again, the court will dig deep into the psyche of Donald John Trump. Good luck with that!

Stepping back from the immediate indictment, what are the implications?

First, we now have a precedent for the indictment of a major candidate for office by partisans (officials, yes, but partisan ones, too) during the election season. Let that sink in. Does any rational human being not see that prosecutors in Florida and Texas will be looking at the next crop of Democratic hopefuls for excuses to bring charges during the run up to the 2028 campaign? Care to bet me no state will? Whatever the outcome of the trial, the precedent is set.

Second, I yield to the members of the Fulton County Grand Jury that they believe a real harm was done to the state by the Trump alleged conspiracy. They heard the evidence and so voted. I question the need to bring the case in the first place. Sure, if Trump skated free on the federal charges, a case could have been readied to file, much as corrupt police officers are sometimes charged with federal civil rights violations after being give a pass by a state jury for some violent act. But the prosecutors wait to see how the first case comes out. In this case, it appears to me to be piling on, especially so as it will affect the campaign. Another case of “when Trump is involved, anything goes.”

Third, there is case law that federal officials cannot be tried by states for actions performed in the line of their federal duties. This is the precedent Mark Meadows, the former White House Chief of Staff, is citing in asking the trial be moved to federal court. Now courts will have to parse out a new precedent whether all actions taken by a federal employee are “in the line” of duty. Mark Meadows is cited for arranging a meeting. If you are a federal employee, you should be very interested in how this part plays out. Imagine a future where any state can charge you and you have to prove your actions were “in the line” of duty? Imagine Assistant Deputy Secretaries in DHS charged by Texas for crimes committed by unauthorized border-crossers. What a world!

Fourth, I have already seen several gleeful reports that this case will include the booking and mugshot of the defendant, and a televised trial. I have mentioned the blood-lust Trump inspires before, and how undignified, even Trump-like, it is. Before anyone gets their hopes up, recall that a little thing called the Secret Service is involved. Things may not happen quite the way some people hope. And they shouldn’t hope for such things anyway. It’s base.

Fifth, whatever the outcome, it has no practical significance for the election. Trump can be tried, found guilty, and sentenced, and if he wins the electoral college, he will still be President. There is even reason to believe that under that scenario, the US Department of Justice would intervene in the case, calling for either the suspension or the overturning of the result as an infringement on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch. Which would be another bad precedent.

Sixth, while I have respect for the prosecutor and the judge in this case, I remind everyone that this is a state jurisdiction trial. Federal prosecution is most feared by all the accused, as federal prosecutors have an impressive record: last year, .4% of federal defendants went to trial and were acquitted. Almost 90% pled guilty. I am not reassured that the state office responsible for handling the posting of the indictment did so before the Grand Jury voted. That might be an omen for things to come.

So in summary, most of what the indictment alleges is factually provable, and some is obvious. Whether that constitutes a conspiracy under Georgia law I’ll leave to the good men and women of the jury. I would note that Stacey Abram has been walking around claiming the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election (which she lost) was “flawed” and refusing (still) to concede, a fact I think will be mentioned at trial. Even a conviction has little relevance for the federal outcome, although the treatment of the accused, the effect on a campaign, and the legal precedents set will be with us for decades.

That’s a potentially high price for a mugshot.

I can hardly generate the enthusiasm to cover this subject yet again. The Times and the Post had pages of news, analysis, and opinion. The main televised media interrupted coverage for breathless panels (are there any other kind these days?) which compared the event to 9/11, Watergate and the Moon Landing (not the last one, but almost). That says more about them than about the indictment, but it is important, so here goes.

Jack Smith, Special Counsel in the Department of Justice (DOJ), has indicted former-President Trump on four counts, namely

• Conspiracy to defraud the US by denying the outcome of the 2020 election
• Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, namely, that certification
• Obstruction of that same official proceeding, and finally
• Conspiracy to violate the people’s civil rights to vote and have their vote count.

First off, let’s dispense with the obvious partisan talking points.

Those on the right who suggest these indictments criminalize political speech are wrong. The former President and his MAGA supporters can stand on any corner and proclaim the 2020 election was stolen all day. They still can. What is in question are actions taken by then-President Trump and his co-conspirators. Those actions may (or may not) be deemed crimes. A simple analogy. You can claim that my car is yours. You can write about it, speechify about it, send me an e-mail, all protected by the First Amendment. But if you get in that car in question and drive away in it, I will charge you with theft and the matter will be resolved in court. Actions, not words.

Some on the left continue to insist that Mr. Smith should have charged Mr. Trump with insurrection and seditious conspiracy. The first was one of the charges referred to the DOJ by the January 6th committee. They over-reached there, as Jack Smith’s refusal to pursue it shows. The second charge is one that has been successfully used against groups like the Proud Boys, but those cases are moving up the appeals process, and higher courts are looking closely at them. The prosecutors got convictions at trial, but whether the charges themselves will hold up to higher court scrutiny remains to be seen. Smith smartly avoided the possibility.

Anybody who saw (even on tape) the January 6th riot, and heard Trump’s railing about the election, should have few doubts about the facts of the cases. There is only one real challenge within those facts. All the charges rest in some manner on conspiracy, and that charge requires the suspect’s knowledge that what he was doing was wrong. Not that he was in fact wrong, or even that others told him he was wrong, but that he knew he was wrong and proceeded anyway.

That is the main challenge facing Jack Smith in court. Now the indictments simply allege that Mr. Smith has the evidence to confirm this point, they don’t show the evidence, so we don’t know. Some of the forty-five pages allude to times when others told Trump he was wrong about the election, or when he made comments which suggest he knew he was wrong. That will be stacked up against the noise coming from the same man, loudly and continuously, for the past almost three years. We shall see. I don’t envy the court and the jury being invited into the squirrel’s nest that is Donald Trump’s mind.

There are some other, specific challenges hidden in the indictment. For example, fraud requires a tangible gain (monetary or otherwise), and so Mr. Smith must postulate what that was. The White House (which the President only “rents”)? Presidential pay (which Mr. Trump donated)? Denial of civil rights requires proving a specific intent to do so, as in the suspect saying, “I am going to cheat those Georgians of their right-to-vote,” so that’s a high bar. Finally, corruption, which gets several mentions in the indictment, must also be specific, and in related case, a unanimous Supreme Court threw out a “boundless” definition of corruption and the resulting conviction of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, calling it the criminalization of horse-trading of politics.

As you should now see, the basic case before the jury is strong. The appellate issues are huge. So we might see a short trial and conviction followed by a lengthy and contentious appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. So I ask the question: is it worth it?

Just as no president ever tried to reverse his defeat at the ballot box before, no prosecutor has brought charges for doing so, meaning there is no precedent for applying the statutes on the books to such a circumstance.

Peter Baker, NYT correspondent

Besides punishing the former President, what is at stake here? All those appeals will result in precedents. If a Trump conviction is overturned by the Supreme Court, Democrats will attack the legitimcy of the court, guaranteed. If it’s upheld, MAGAists will call the entire justice system corrupt.

Since 1973, the DOJ of all Republican and Democratic Presidents has held that a sitting President cannot be charged with federal crimes, as that would interfere with his constitutional duties. Trump was President when he committed the actions Jack Smith has charged against him. So now we have a precedent that while sitting, the President is immune, but the day he leaves office, we can go back and charge him for action undertaken while in office. Furthermore, the courts have held that the proper legal way to hold a President to account is impeachment. Trump was impeached by the House (equivalent to an indictment), but was not found guilty by the Senate for the same activities. While this is not a literal case of double jeopardy, it does raise obvious questions of equity.

What are the most likely outcomes of this trial? It won’t be short. The outcomes must be arrayed against the outcomes of the simultaneous election. The charges will still be in play, perhaps under appeal, in January, 2025 when the winner of the Presidential race is sworn in.

Conviction will not result in disqualifying Trump from office, despite the ravings of some. A Trump victory would force the DOJ to drop the charges consistent with their longstanding policy, which would leave the matter unresolved in Democrats’ minds. If they didn’t, MAGAists would revolt, and returning President Trump could move to pardon himself, generating another terrible precedent (and probably more legal wrangling, or even impeachment, depending on who has control of the House and Senate). If Trump loses the election, there is the chance he wins in the courts in the end, remaining the wounded martyr to his legion of fans (Trump 2028, anyone?). Even from prison. Democrats would cheer these outcomes up until the next Republican administration appoints special counsels for any and all living, Democratic, former Presidents. Think they won’t?

Should Congress have impeached Trump on interference in the election certification, just that, and not on incitement to violence and insurrection? Yes. We’ll never know whether more limited charges, with the intent to prevent another Trump candidacy (an outcome allowed under the constitution) would have attracted a few more Republican Senators.

Should we enact new laws against the types of behavior Trump and his co-conspirators exhibited? I welcome the debate, but Congress and the President have avoided it up to now, because it is so fraught with peril to the political process. Should we stretch existing law to cover such cases? Probably not, as the Supreme Court will rule if they get the chance.

Finally, the ultimate lesson, one we have failed to learn. Should we continue to change everything we do (our customs, our manners, our precedents, even our laws) because of Donald J. Trump? No. He is the great white whale of many in the liberal establishment, and in pursuing him, we give him too much credit, and undermine the very system some claim to want to protect. Perhaps those who say we cannot allow Trump’s behavior to stand should recall the fate of Captain Ahab.

When people get especially critical of America, its politics or policies, its history or culture, I like to remind them . . . there’s a reason:

If “(i)n America, it is traditional to destroy the black body – it is heritage”(Ta-Nehisi Coates), why do millions of black Africans begin a perilous journey across the Atlantic to Central or South America, then walk thousands of miles just to get to the US border? Did they fail to get the word?

When “bigotry against Hispanics has been an American constant since the Founding Fathers”(Marie Arana in the Washington Post), why do millions of Hispanic people of every nation and religion abandon home and hearth–and sometimes carrying their children on their backs–jump on moving trains just to get there? Like Rick in Casablanca, were they “misinformed?”

If America is a xenophobic land of increasing anti-Asian hate crimes, why do wealthy Chinese families insist on sending their prized only-child or grandchild to expensive American universities?

When America is the home of fervent anti-Islamic religious bigotry, why did Afghan Muslims risk certain death to cling to the wheels of American transport planes as they evacuated Kabul?

If Canada is all that America claims to be in terms of kindness, opportunity, and freedom, and there are nine Americans (roughly) for every Canadian, why did more Canadians move to America than vice versa in ninety-nine of the last one hundred years?

One can find ethnic expat enclaves in many countries, but why is America the only place you can find so many different, thriving ones? London may have several representing the ties of empire and Commonwealth, but there’s a little Mogadishu in Minneapolis and Koreatown in Los Angeles. Burmese Christians created Chindianapolis in Indiana, and there’s a little Albania in the Bronx and Little Ethiopia in DC. San Jose has a Vietnamese community, Edison (New Jersey) has an Indian one, and Miami has Haitians, among a Cuban diaspora. Ethnic immigrants binding together is a common international phenomenon, but in America it becomes a point of pride and celebration.

It is easy to find videos from Europe featuring “man-in-the-street” interviews where locals decry the cultural crassness, the violence, the bigotry, the political divisiveness of America. They sit perched on a park bench, perusing their iPhone, eating McDonald’s, wearing jeans and a English language print t-shirt, with their ethnically homogeneous friends. Actions speak louder than words, non?

America has so many faults. We pretend inequality is only because of effort. We lionize superficiality and physical attractiveness over performance and moral courage. We idolize the individual, but deep down inside, we know none of us deserve deity status. Our schools are a mess, our infrastructure is crumbling, we spend far more than we have. Our leadership on all sides is more interested in scoring political points than getting anything done.

And yet they keep coming. Why?

Because America is about an idea. It’s about a possibility. It’s about an opportunity. Even when it falls short–and it sometimes does–the promise of a better life in a better place remains. And it does get better: sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident, often slowly. That possibility is something worth trying for, even worth dying for. And so they come.

Some Americans forget just what a special privilege it is to be born American. They see all those faults I listed (and many others) and they think “burn it all down” or “start over” or “replace it with . . . ?” They have the luxury of outrage. Don’t listen to them. They are people who are so myopic they can’t see the truth staring them in the face.

Yes, America is flawed. Always has been. But its promise has always been so much greater than its flaws, even when it was a land of slavery and rich, white, male suffrage. And throughout a checkered history, it has consistently acted on that promise: changing laws, changing customs, fighting wars (even a civil one), and providing a chance, an opportunity, to live a better life. Whoever you are. From wherever you come.

That’s something to celebrate. Happy Fourth of July!

Since the first days of the investigation into former President Trump’s handling of classified materials, I have cautioned my friends to be careful about making up their minds before all the facts are in. Why? First off, it’s easy with Trump, as most people made up their minds long ago. Those with MAGA hats believe whatever he says; Trump-haters think that the end of getting him justifies the means. Both sides make the same mistake: thinking everything revolves around Trump. There have always been larger issues at stake.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

Now we have the actual indictment brought forward and released by Special Counsel Jack Smith. I read it so you don’t have to. It is important to reiterate what Mr. Smith himself said about the presumption of innocence, as well as the point that an indictment lays out the basics of the prosecution case, but of course the defense will also have its say. Here’s what you need to know (pun intended):

• The indictment lists numerous highly-classified documents with descriptions suggesting they contain some of the most sensitive classified information. One initial concern about this case was that there are millions of classified documents, and all are not created equal. It is clear from the indictment Trump had very important documents, highly-sought after by enemies of the United States, and limited in access to very small numbers of authorized officials. This was not a case of small potatoes.
• Trump directed the handling of the documents at the White House, at Mar-a-lago, and several other times during his post-presidency period. The defense that he did not know about the documents, that perhaps a staffer mistakenly transferred them, is not viable. This was the defense Vice President Pence probably used (successfully) and it may well be what President Biden uses when his case comes to a conclusion.
• There is no suggestion that any of the material was compromised (seen or acquired by foreign governments). The random methods used to transport and store the material ironically practically ensured no one knew exactly what was there, or where it was. Any talking heads suggesting “damage to national security” are blowing smoke based on what the indictment holds, although there will be more investigation of this point.
• Trump openly admitted he knew the documents he was handling were “secret” (sic), “still classified,” and that he could no longer declassify them. This destroys his public defense that he automatically declassified them by thinking it was so while he was still President. He also showed classified materials on two occasions to people unauthorized to see them, although the indictment seems to indicate Trump was holding the document and waving it in front of the unauthorized persons, probably minimizing compromise.
• Trump publicly stated he was in compliance with the Presidential Records Act, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant, since he was indicted under the Espionage Act and for conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying, and withholding. The Espionage Act does not require anyone to actually be a spy for another country; its provisions also extend to the mishandling or criminal neglect of classified information. Lying, withholding, and conspiracy are separate statutes.
• Trump just made the claim that only the President may determine which government records are “his,” and having done so, the records in question are governed solely by the Presidential Records Act. However, the classified documents in question are all products of various Executive branch agencies, and even if then-President Trump wrote notes on them, they do not become his personal records. That, and some are classified by law (the Atomic Energy Act, which even the President may not declassify) and marked “Restricted Data.” His claims here amount to telling the policeman who pulled you over for speeding on the interstate that you’re sober, you have a license, your car is properly registered, and you drive the speed limit on your home street. “what’s the problem, officer?”
• The obstruction and related charges are by far the most significant, as they have no technical defense a la the Presidential Record Act or the President’s authority over declassification. If Trump was charged under either of those cases, the indictment would be weak. As it is, the indictment is strong. Trump can’t claim the records were his or not classified; that doesn’t matter if he lied about having them, hid them, and induced others to join him in doing so.

The conspiracy et al charges are also the potentially weakest ones in the indictment. Why? Because they rest on two pillars: the efforts by Trump’s assistant, Waltine Nauta, to access/move/hide the records at Trump’s direction, and the communications the government seized between Trump and his first lawyer. Mr Nauta has a close personal relationship with Trump, and while he could avoid penalty by turning the prosecution’s witness, this is unlikely. The Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer went to federal prison recently rather than turn on Mr. Trump, and I would expect no less from Mr. Nauta. The fact that the government has highly-damaging communications between Trump and his initial lawyer rests on an earlier court ruling that suspends the attorney-client privilege in cases where the relationship was used in furtherance of a crime. This ruling will come up again in this trial, and if the evidence is thrown out, the conspiracy charges are greatly weakened.

If the conspiracy et al charges hold, Mr. Trump will have a hard time avoiding prison. Lying and covering things up were what brought Nixon down, and only a pardon spared him incarceration. If those charges fail, the most likely outcome is a fine or some other form of non-prison punishment. The notion that the United States would put a former President in prison for mishandling classified information is simply too great a reach. While some partisans would cheer for it, it would be a terrible precedent for the sitting President, too. I could foresee a plea deal, or even a pardon, if that is all that is left of the charges.

Finally, what about the comparisons to the handling of classified information by then-Senator/Vice President Biden, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? We simply don’t know enough about the Biden case to comment on it yet. Somebody moved the documents and left them where they were unsecured, but we don’t know who or under whose guidance. We also don’t know whether the documents were highly classified. We do know they were unsecured for years, and thus somebody was responsible for gross negligence.

The comparison to the Clinton case is what should be most galling to Trump’s supporters. Secretary Clinton willfully circumvented the rules, did so over an extended period of time, and the FBI found most likely some of the classified information was compromised. But she left no literal or figurative fingerprints on her actions. So Trump will find himself in federal court because he was too stupid, talked too much, and left a trail of classified bread crumbs leading directly back to himself. And with no one to blame but himself.

Sorry, but I had to wait for this one, as nothing was real or final until the indictment was unsealed. Did you watch the non-stop coverage? Pretty riveting. If you liked that, you’ll probably like televised Quidditch.

Let’s get one thing clear upfront: if you want to convict former President Donald Trump–in the court of public opinion–of being a lousy human being, you have my full support. I even know some MAGA-hat wearing people who admit as much. Bu that’s not a crime in the borough of Manhattan, so on to the charges and more importantly, the consequences.

Let’s start with what Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg charged Trump: thirty-four felony counts. Ignore the number of counts, as they represent simply thirty-four iterations of the same crime: falsifying business records in 2017. Which is a misdemeanor under New York State Law, with a five year statute of limitations. Two problems here: Trump is charged with a felony, but the crime is a misdemeanor, and it is well past the expiration date. But wait, there’s an explanation: under New York law, this crime can be raised to a felony if the fraudulent action was accomplished to hide another crime. And, New York allows the statutory clock to be suspended when a defendant is out of the state (like, in the White House), so we’re on steady ground. Sort of.

But what’s the other crime Trump was hiding, you ask? Well, the indictment doesn’t say, but eventually DA Bragg will have to explain it in court. In a press conference, Bragg referred to both federal and state election laws, and state tax law. The problem with the first is there is legal uncertainty about a state prosecutor alleging a federal crime that no one has been accused of (although Trump was investigated by both the Federal Election Commission and the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and neither brought charges). There is precedent for crimes which were charged or tried, but none for allegations. Just as an example, imagine the DA tying the hush money to a UN law on corruption for which the DA had no jurisdiction, with which no one was charged, nor tried, nor found guilty. No one is yet clear how Trump may have violated New York state election law as part of a federal election, as federal law supersedes state law in federal election cases. That leaves state tax laws, which may be the strongest link Bragg has. If you have heard talking heads saying that the indictment rests on an untested legal theory, this is the part to which they are referring. It’s just not clear, and certainly not cut-and-dried.

Back to the title, what actually happened? Regarding an alleged affair, Trump used his attorney and fixer, Micheal Cohen, to funnel hush money to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election. Trump fraudulently listed payments to Cohen as legal expenses, the heart of the charges.

Trump did exactly what the charges say he did. Cohen made the payments (before the election), Trump reimbursed him (after the election), and the paperwork showed a fraud. So why did the former Manhattan DA pause the investigation, and why did the Federal Election Commission and the US District Attorney not bring charges? The argument to charge this rests on the assumption Trump did what he did to win the election. This makes the payments into campaign contributions, which were not reported properly. Which raises the counterargument: did Trump do this to win the election, or to avoid embarrassing his family? After all, this was a man who said “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” This was also a man who gave the infamous Access Hollywood interview with Billy Bush, wherein he was heard bragging he could “grab ’em (women) by the _______” and get away with it. He showed utter disdain for proper candidate conduct, and while he is beyond suffering embarrassment, he is very protective of his family. As always, motive is a difficult thing to prove.

The strongest parts of DA Bragg’s case are in the Statement of Facts. Here the DA relates the prior cases of Trump making hush money payments to Karen McDougal (a playboy bunny with whom he allegedly had an affair) and to the doorman of a Trump building (who thought Trump had an illegitimate child, but was incorrect). These actions, not part of the indictment, establish a pattern of behavior. Also, Bragg reportedly (no evidence has been released) has e-mails indicating Trump wanted to delay the payments to Daniels until after the election, and indicated he might not pay it then. This suggests the payments were about the election, not the family’s embarrassment. Both Cohen and David Pecker (CEO of a media conglomerate who owns the National Enquirer) were involved with and can testify to the payments and the overall scheme.

Beyond the novel legal theory, the weakest parts of DA Bragg’s case are first that Trump made the payments in 2017, after the election, regardless of what he may have said in an e-mail. So he still acted on the possible scandal when it could no longer affect the election, but could have embarrassed his family. Second, Cohen and Daniels are both poor quality witnesses: Cohen pleaded guilty to lying under oath (to Congress), while Daniels had to pay Trump’s legal fees after he won a civil decision against her.

Some are crowing “No one is above the law” and that is true. However, the law has always treated American Presidents differently. The Constitution specifies that Impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate is the way to bring charges against a sitting President. Thus the Department of Justice (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) still holds that a sitting President can not be indicted under federal law; but the Constitution and the courts have never ruled whether this prohibition applies to state courts. Trump is a former President, not a sitting one, so this case is different, but the concept was the same: in America, we treat Presidents differently under the law.

Even history is illustrative here. Richard Nixon committed several felonies within the Watergate affair. After he was forced to resign pending a successful impeachment, newly-installed President Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon for all crimes related to Watergate, ending the possibility of years of trials and appeals. Note that although Nixon was certainly guilty, and the pardon only applied to federal crimes, no state or local prosecutor sought to bring charges. While most people were outraged by Nixon’s amorality, this case exemplifies how America used to handle such things.

Some claim this is all political: a vendetta by a Democratic partisan against a Republican former President. It is true that Bragg campaigned on bringing charges against Trump, and while that may have been wise as a campaign tactic (he won, after all), it was foolish in practice. Bragg claims he has new evidence, suggesting he has more or better grounds for the indictment; we shall see. I don’t see this trial as political. Bragg is not indicting Trump because he’s a Republican, or a candidate for President. Truth be told, most Democrats relish another Trump candidacy since they feel he will not only lose, he will drag down the GOP with him (probably true). So this is not political, it is personal. Which is a whole ‘nother problem.

In addition to the claim “no one is above the law,” another putative principle of American jurisprudence is “justice is blind,” meaning the law treats all individuals the same: rich and poor, powerful and weak. The personal nature of this prosecution makes it unwise. Tell me honestly, if the defendant in this case was John Smith, that the Manhattan DA would be tying up the resources, stretching the statutes, and breaking the precedents. You can’t.

To further the point, note the glee with which the indictment has been received. The left in general hoped for a perp walk, a mug shot, maybe handcuffs. Notice how few mention that as a non-violent first-time offender, the most likely sentence even if he is found guilty is no jail time. This is about how Trump ‘needed to be got, and was got’ as one New York Times journalist said. Pamela Paul’s article revels in the karmic justice of the indictment, echoing morning talk shows and late-night comedians.

What are the likely outcomes? If you forced me to list them in order of probability, most likely is the judge will dismiss the charges for insufficiency, perhaps telling the DA to refile as misdemeanors and seek a settlement. Next likely is a trial resulting in a guilty verdict overturned on appeal. Least likely is trial and upheld conviction. But in any case, the damage will have been done. What we are talking about now is not a slippery slope; it is precedent.

We now know the answer to a famous trivia question: who was the first former US President indicted for a criminal act? Donald J. Trump. But we also know the answer to another trivia question? Who was the second such President? Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The third? His successor, regardless of party. The family Biden (Joe & Hunter & James) better get real good lawyers, and many, as there are vast swaths of Red America ready to play this game.

Ford did the the right thing; in our system, it is better to put even something as serious as Watergate behind us. It cost him re-election, but it was still correct. We have lost that lesson. Now it is all about blood lust. Perhaps New York Governor Kathy Hochul could end all this tomorrow by issuing a state pardon. Silly me, that would take thinking what’s best for the country. Something about Trump forces otherwise reasonable people ON BOTH SIDES to act crazy or against their interests. Think I’m wrong? Look at the Capitol on January 6th, or Manhattan, April 4th.