“Many who detest Trump, I suspect, have lost faith in the ability of the
legal system to hold him to account.” – Michelle Goldberg, April 5 column, NY
Times
"I know it can't be a good look when a democracy indicts a former president who received 73 million votes in 2020. On the other hand if you believe no one should be above the law then maybe this is a good thing for our democracy to finally confront. Other democracies have managed it."- Mike Littwin, Colorado Sun, today, p. 16
"The indictment of Donald J
Trump has not driven a wooden stake through his heart. He has risen,
omnipresent and ominous again, overwhelming his rivals, their voices joined
into his choir, like the singing January 6 prisoners, proclaiming the
wickedness of his prosecution." - Sidney Blumenthal, in The Guardian, April 4 column
Even as Trump bellowed threats against Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan and his family - according to the WaPo "dozens" - one is led to ponder a question from many liberal legal pundits: How do we put an end to Donald J. Trump, say if he escapes accountability again?
How especially do we ensure he never again gets near the levers of state power? From his rancorous toxic political influence and ongoing destruction of constitutional norms and our democratic Republic - to his current barrage of threats against DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan. I have a few ideas, the foremost of which was first mentioned on Ari Berman's MSNBC show last Friday: Let Judge Merchan slap a gag order on his fat ass - so no more vile rhetoric- and if he violates it he gets a contempt of court charge and 8 months in Rikers Island to wait for his trial onset. Personally, I'd rather see the SOB hung right now, but then that's just channeling my Revolutionary War ancestors, Jacob and Conrad Brumbaugh.
But seriously, the sad fact is that this case and pressing the charges to completion is not a "slam dunk". On CBS yesterday morning, NYC legal eagle Rikki Kleiman made clear she had not yet seen any statutes tied to any of the charges. In other words, we have no idea - zero - what specific crimes were committed. (Or whether a statutes of limitations filing would negate them). She was also asked if she'd rather be a defense attorney for a Trump trial, or a prosecutor. She put on an impish grin and said "Defense attorney!"
Also a cause for concern, though she quicky insisted there is no political bias, only that she prides herself as a "scrapper".
But seriously, on further examination it looks like the cases against traitor Trump isn't going to be a slam dunk at all. And all those traumatized by his freak election in 2016 (thanks to Russkie help and too many willing to give him a chance) are also on edge now, expecting this maggot to slide through the gears of the wheels of justice once more.
Former Bill Clinton senior advisor Sidney Blumenthal put it most darkly in his Guardian column 2 days ago:
"The death watch of Trump is a cyclical phenomenon. After each of his storms, the pundits, talking heads and party strategists on all sides emerge from their cellars, survey the latest wreckage and check the scientific measurements of the polls to give the “all clear” sign that the cyclone had passed. When Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020, thoughtful analysts assured that Trump’s time was gone, he would fade away and his comeback in 2024 was an impossibility, just “not going to happen”. Everyone should “relax”. Then came January 6. When Trump’s endorsed candidates in the 2022 midterm elections, a gaggle of election deniers and conspiracy mongers, were ignominiously rejected, last rites were pronounced. Trump was dead again."
But he wasn't dead, given:
"The implacability of Trump’s political base’s attachment was discounted."
Adding:
"The wishful thinking that Trump would magically disappear, however, ignored the omens of Liz Cheney’s purging, the victories of his candidates in the midterm Republican primaries over blanched “normies”, and the corrupt bargain that McCarthy was forced to make to secure his speakership."
Add to all the above the legal complexities and the high bar that DA Alvin Bragg must hurdle. Even then most legal eagles insist that if convicted Trump will spend no jail time and at most, "home detention" - meaning confined to Mar-a-Lago.
According to the indictment, the business record falsifications were done “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” Though no other crime is charged, the statement of facts accompanying the indictment accuses Trump of violating election laws. It’s the connection to another crime that turns falsifying business records from a misdemeanor into a felony. But most legal gurus believe it will be hardest to prove.
According to David Cohen, a long time defense attorney from New York qoted in yesterday's LA Times:
"Whatever secondary crime Bragg is relying on to charge the counts as felonies instead of misdemeanors is very, very amorphous, and it’s going to be interesting to see how they prove it,”
Daniel Farber, a professor at the UC Berkeley Law School who
studies presidential power, said Bragg “paints a compelling picture of a
conspiracy to falsify business records in order to suppress negative
information during the presidential campaign and a jury might well find that
a compelling story.”
But: "we still don’t know what the prosecutor has in mind when it comes to elevating the case to a felony."
This gets back to Ms. Klieman's complaint that there are no specific statutes tied to the charges which emerged by way of a "talking indictment."
Observers from across the political spectrum, according to a WSJ piece, have been skeptical of the legal theory that underlies Bragg’s case. As The New York Times reported in March,
“Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.”
The WSJ piece also noted that for such a felony specific intent must be proven, and we know intent is always hard to show especially in white paper crimes. Recall during the 'Varsity Blues' college cheating scandal:
Varsity Blues scandal - Wikipedia
One NYC lawyer actually said he relished defending one or more of the culprits given how difficult our legal system makes it to prove intent.
Trump, in other words, may still wriggle out of this predicament. So how to take him down? I suspect the investigations of special prosecutor Jack Smith may afford the best chances, to do with the missing top secret documents, and the Jan. 6 insurrection. In the case of the documents Trump stole, the spinners at the WSJ (e.g. Gerard Baker) are already trying to argue that Mr. Smith wouldn't dare bring an indictment given Joe Biden also had missing documents.
But Baker misses the difference, big time. In the case of Trump, he was asked repeatedly by the National Archives to transmit the missing documents back to them, for months and months and months. And even then, what was transmitted back was not complete. Trump was subpoenaed to get the rest of the classified information and what was provided even then was not complete. Then there was a search warrant issued after evidence of potential obstruction of the investigation and even after that search warrant additional documents had been found. None of this obstruction happened with Biden.
It will be interesting to see how things play out over the coming months, and if Trump really gets his comeuppance or escapes his just desserts once more. But as Bill Maher said last year, there is always the chance this fat swine could keel over from a heart attack - given the fats and processed crap he eats.
In any case, I am not holding my breath - only believing if all else fails, and Trump escapes all legal consequences - then grabs the GOP nomination, Biden will be there to throttle his ass again.
Yes, Marjorie Taylor -Greene, Trump was indeed "joining some of the most incredibly depraved people in history in being arrested" - including Nazi S.S. commandant Rudolph Hess (strangled to death in Spandau prison after Nuremberg trial), and Jeffrey Dahmer-- Milwaukee serial killer cannibal, murdered in prison after his incarceration.
See Also:
by Amanda Marcotte | April 6, 2023 - 6:57am | permalink
Excerpt:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, from the moment Donald Trump was indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — really, long before that moment — Republican politicians were declaring Trump is innocent. The emptiness of the posturing was built in. It's not just that Republicans don't believe their talking points — no one does.
Trump's selling point to the GOP base has long been his criminality. The MAGA base was compelled by the idea that only a true villain could get them what they want because he would flout all rules and laws in his pursuit of their authoritarian goals. So to claim Trump is "innocent" is not to deny that he committed a crime, so much as it is to assert that he should be above the law.
And:
by Amanda Marcotte | April 5, 2023 - 6:59am | permalink
After a violent insurrection, two impeachments, countless other scandals, and the time he suggested bleach injections to treat COVID-19, it's hard to forget sometimes that the first Donald Trump crime that galvanized his opposition was sexual assault.
Shortly before the 2016 election, a recording was released of Trump on a hot mic before a 2005 "Access Hollywood" taping, bragging that he likes to force himself on women. "Grab 'em by the pussy," he infamously recommended. "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Over two dozen women swiftly came forward to confirm that this is Trump's M.O. So his 2016 election was a shock to millions of Americans; an ugly reminder that this is still a society that mostly looks the other way when men assault and abuse women. In turn, the first protest against Trump — likely the largest protest in American history! — was the Women's March on January 21, 2017. The rage continued to grow, exploding after the Harvey Weinstein revelations, into a mass outpouring of fury over sexual abuse called the #MeToo movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment