Of course charging Donald Trump is political - it’s also the right thing to do
America’s system of law and order is utterly politicised and has been for centuries
(Trump has repeatedly sought to claim victimhood Pic: Wikicommons)
So many words. So much hot air. Can there really be anything left to say?
Since Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg last week confirmed that an indictment had been issued for Donald Trump, it has felt that the media, the politicians, and the talking heads have never stopped. They have barely paused for breath.
We live in an age of 24-hour news and social media, with many people feeling obliged to say “something”, even if they have nothing to contribute.
The charging of the 76-year-old with 34 felony counts of altering business records, was certainly huge, historic news. But the amount of time the TV anchors had to fill between the breaking news of the indictment late last Thursday to his return to Florida from New York on Tuesday evening, felt cavernous.
In essence, the people quoted fell into one of two broad camps: those who believed this was a politically-driven pursuit of a decent man by a left wing prosecutor, and those who who insisted Trump had to face the law, the same as anyone else in America. Most of those in the first group were Republicans. Most of those in the second were Democrats or never-Trumpers. Obviously there was some cross over.
What nobody said is something that feels like utter common sense - namely that both are true.
Yes, of course Trump’s arrest is in good part politically motivated, but bringing him to court in New York and making him answer for his alleged crimes is also essential to try and defend the rule of law. These beliefs are not in conflict; rather, they support each other.
First, consider the role of politics.
Does anyone believe the New York charges - that of falsifying business records over the payment of hush money to two women back in 2016 - would have been brought by a Republican prosecutor? Of course not.
Similarly, the case of alleged interference in Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County is, in effect ,short-hand for the heavily Democratic city of Atlanta, where the main prosecutor, District Attorney Fani Willis, is a Democratic.
The state of Georgia, headed by a Republican governor, Brian Kemp, and backed by a Republican Attorney General, Chris Carr, could have chosen to pursue its own probe but declined to do so.
Furthermore, the Georgia state legislature is one of several controlled by the GOP across the country, considering legislation to rein in so-called “woke prosecutors” who aren’t doing enough to fight traditional crimes. Willis, 51, is among those who have condemned the legislation.
At the federal level, Trump faces two investigations being overseen by the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland. President Joe Biden has, probably wisely, tried to keep as much space between himself and the probes, one into Trump’s handling of apparently classified documents, and the other into his role in the events leading up to the violence and chaos of Jan 6.
Garland has appointed Jack Smith, a veteran prosecutor, and made him a special counsel in order to give him more independence from the DoJ.
Many think these cases may be the strongest against the former president. But if Republicans win the White House in 2024, does anyone for a second think Smith’s investigation is going to be allowed to continue?
At the very least, it would go on the back burner.
The reality is, America’s system of law and order is utterly politicised and has been for centuries. In a way that Americans barely seem to notice, but which strikes new arrivals as strange, many state and county judges, prosectors and police chiefs, run for election on party lines.
Judges brag in their election campaigns about how they’re going to get tough on crime. Prosecutors vow they’re going to go after white collar criminals as well as the common man. Local sheriffs promise to fill their often already overcrowded jails.
At a federal level, politics also has a role. The actual prosecutors who do the work don’t need to pass a political litmus test, but their bosses do.
In Minnesota, for instance, Andrew Luger was in 2022 appointed United States Attorney for the state. He had previously served in that role after being appointed by Barack Obama. He is said to be friends with Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has a role in such appointments.
Federal-level judges do not have to seek election, but politics is still very part of the process.
In 2016, Trump ran with a promise to nominate and appoint conservative judges, and he did just that. According to the Pew Research Centre, Trump appointed 200 judges to the federal bench, including nearly as many powerful federal appeals court judges in four years as Obama managed in eight.
Where did Trump get these names? Most from a list supplied by a powerful DC-based conservative lobbying group known as the Federalist Society, which makes it a task to screen potential appointments.
Even America’s highest court - or particularly America’s highest court - is an entity wielding vast political power. If politics, and increasingly hardline, ideological politics, were not a factor, then the Supreme Court would not last year have scrapped Roe v Wade. If that were not the case, Democrats would not be pitching ways to boost the court’s numbers to give “their side” the majority.
This is the reality that prosectors and courts and judges operate in. In theory, of course, everyone is equal before the law. In reality, we know that is not the case
(Protesters close to court house - Wikicommons)
None of this makes the decision to charge Donald Trump wrong.
The case brought this week in the New York County Criminal Court in New York City charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump pleaded not guilty.
It is alleged the former president in 2016 made hush money payments to adult actress Stormy Daniels ahead of election day to ensure her silence over claims she and Trump had an affair.
It is alleged the payments were made by Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was then reimbursed by Trump, with the costs being variously described to avoid detection.
Prosectors say Trump also made payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and hid them, constituting an attempt to conceal a violation of election law.
“The defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the defendant's electoral prospects,” asserts the indictment's so-called Statement of Facts.
Is there any reason Trump should not be charged with such a crime, particularly given that Cohen pleaded guilty to making the payments and was sentenced to three years in jail?
Trump and his supporters claim he has immunity from prosecution as a former president.
As it is, there is noting in the Constitution that grants blanket immunity to even a sitting president, let alone a former one. However, since an 1867 ruling, the Supreme Court has placed the president beyond the reach of the courts.
That interpretation has stuck, with the DoJ arguing that presidents cannot be charged. As a result, no federal prosector has ever tried to do so, even in the case of seemingly serious crimes including Trump’s role in Jan 6.
There are a lot of legal arguments as to whether such immunity is bulletproof.
It is interesting then to note that, in addition to railing against the prosector in New York, when Trump returned to Florida, he attacked the special counsel looking into his cases.
(Every uninformed New York Police Department was put on standby - Wikicommons)
Plenty of experts believe these cases are legally stronger than the case in New York. Democratic California Congressman Adam Schiff, who led the party’s impeachment prosecution of Trump, told CNN he wished the DOJ would move more quickly.
Asked if Bragg was going after the wrong crimes, he said, “I'm concerned that the case that is the most significant, that is the federal case involving Donald Trump's effort to overturn the election, the incitement of the violence on January 6, all of the things that we referred to the Justice Department.”
He added,“The Department has taken far too long to investigate and potentially prosecute. Those cases really should have gone first.”
None of this is the fault of Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA who was elected in 2021. He inherited a years-long probe into the Trump case from his predecessor.
Initially, he decided not to pursue the case. Amid a backlash, he started “digging through the files” and reached out to Cohen to see if he would be a witness. Cohen agreed to do so and was among those whose evidence was presented to a grand jury Bragg convened early this year.
Americans of all stripes will have felt a discomfort about seeing Trump in court: the president is not only the highest political chief executive but the head of state. Some will think the office was diminished by its occupant being finger-printed and booked like a member of the public.
After Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, labeled by a grand jury an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate scandal, President Gerald Ford decided to pardon him in the hope it would quicken the end to what he called the “long national nightmare”.
Polls suggested, many disagreed with the move and contributed to his failure to win election himself in 1976.
Last week, he announced it had returned indictments. Despite Trump’s claim of being the victim of a witch hunt, it is hard to see what alternative Bragg had but to move forward with a case.
If Americans want to live in a nation of laws, something they routinely claim, it seems only logical and appropriate that there is where things would end.
Bragg certainly defended his decision to pursue Trump when he spoke to the media. “Under New York State law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York state,” he said.
“No matter who you are, we cannot and will not normalise serious criminal conduct.”
Big thanks once again to Susan Peskura for great job with the edit. Much appreciated.