Even Donald Trump Should Be Held Accountable

[maestrob]

March 30, 2023

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.


For the first time in American history, a grand jury has indicted a former president of the United States, The Times reported on Thursday. Donald Trump spent years as a candidate, in office and out of office, ignoring democratic and legal norms and precedents, trying to bend the Justice Department and the judiciary to his whims and behaving as if rules didn’t apply to him.

As the news of the indictment shows, they do.

A pattern of disregard for the law often leads to a criminal indictment, and that is the outcome Mr. Trump now faces. Federal and state prosecutors were right to set aside concerns about political fallout, or reverence for the presidency, and initiate thorough criminal investigations of Mr. Trump’s conduct in at least four instances. The investigation by the Manhattan district attorney is the first known to result in an indictment.

Mr. Trump completely transformed the relationship between the presidency and the rule of law, often asserting that a president was above the law. So it is appropriate that his actions as president and as a candidate should now be formally weighed by judges and juries, with the possibility of criminal penalties on the line. Mr. Trump badly damaged America’s political and legal institutions and threatened them again with calls for widespread protests once he is indicted. But those institutions have proved to be strong enough to hold him accountable for that harm.

A healthy respect for the legal system also requires Americans to set aside their politics when forming judgments on these cases. While Mr. Trump routinely called for his enemies to be investigated by the F.B.I., to be indicted or to face the death penalty, his indifference to due process for others shouldn’t deny him the system’s benefits, including a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. At the same time, no jury should extend to him any special privileges as a former president. He should have to follow the same procedures as any other citizen.

The indictment remains sealed, and the exact charges against Mr. Trump may not be known for several days. But Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, has been pursuing a case of possible fraud and campaign finance violations by Mr. Trump for concealing payments he made to the porn-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. His actions — using money to silence critics and hide politically damaging information — were wrong. The question that will face a jury is whether that behavior meets the threshold for conviction as a felony.

If those are the charges, conviction will hinge on proving that Mr. Trump participated in falsifying business records while violating campaign finance law, a somewhat novel legal strategy. Falsifying records can be charged as a misdemeanor in New York; to make it a more serious felony requires proof that he combined it with a second crime, in this case, a potential campaign finance violation. The former president, who is seeking a second term in 2024, has denied the allegations and has said that the case against him brought by Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, is politically motivated.

While some legal experts have questioned the theory behind Mr. Bragg’s case, there is no basis for the accusation that it is politically motivated — a claim that Mr. Trump has made, for many years, about every investigation into his conduct. Just as jurors are routinely instructed to ignore evidence that is improperly introduced in a trial, they will also have to ignore the unsubstantiated implications raised by Trump supporters and attorneys in these cases and judge them strictly on the merits.

Three of the other investigations that may result in indictments are more serious, because they involve allegations not just that Mr. Trump violated the law but also that he abused his presidential office.

Among the most egregious are the accusations against him in Georgia. The Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, is weighing criminal charges against several people, including Mr. Trump, for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state, which President Biden won by 11,779 votes. Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” additional votes that would change the results of the state’s election, part of a scheme to undermine the will of the voters.

A special grand jury impaneled by Ms. Willis recommended in February that charges be brought in the case; it’s not yet known which people or allegations were included in the grand jury’s recommendations or whom, if anyone, Ms. Willis may seek to indict.

A federal Justice Department inquiry led by a special counsel, Jack Smith, could also result in charges against Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith is investigating the former president’s efforts to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021, when Mr. Trump roused an armed mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol, threatening lawmakers who were gathered to certify the results of the presidential election. A bipartisan Senate report last year found that seven deaths were related to the attack.

Mr. Smith’s team is also investigating the former president over his mishandling of classified documents that were removed from the White House and taken to Mar-a-Lago, his private residence in Florida. Some 300 classified documents have been recovered in the case. Prosecutors are also examining whether Mr. Trump, his attorneys or staff members misled government officials seeking the return of the documents.

In addition to criminal charges, Mr. Trump faces several civil lawsuits. New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, is suing the former president for “grossly” and fraudulently inflating the value of his real estate assets. Three of Mr. Trump’s adult children are named in the suit as well. A group of Capitol Police officers and Democratic legislators are suing the former president, arguing that his actions on Jan. 6 incited the mob that caused them physical and emotional harm. E. Jean Carroll, a writer who accused Mr. Trump of raping her, is suing the former president for defamation. Mr. Trump denies the charges.

Prosecuting the former president will no doubt widen the existing political divisions that have so damaged the country in recent years. Mr. Trump has already stoked that divisiveness, calling prosecutors behind the probes — several of whom are Black — “racist.” He claimed in a social media post that he would be arrested and called on his supporters to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!” The language echoed his rallying cry that preceded the Capitol riot. Officials in New York City, taking no chances on a repeat performance by Mr. Trump’s supporters, have been preparing for unrest.

Those accusations are clearly aimed at undermining the allegations against him, inoculating himself from the consequences of his misconduct and using the cases to his political advantage. The two district attorneys in these cases are elected Democrats, but their race and political affiliations are not relevant to the legal proceedings. (Mr. Smith is not registered with either party.) Nevertheless, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy immediately demonstrated his party’s intent to politicize the indictment by calling Mr. Bragg “a radical DA” pursuing “political vengeance” against Mr. Trump. Mr. McCarthy has no jurisdiction over the Manhattan district attorney and no business interfering in a criminal prosecution, and yet he vowed to have the House of Representatives determine whether Mr. Bragg’s office is receiving federal funds.

The decision to prosecute a former president is a solemn task, particularly given the deep national fissures that Mr. Trump will inevitably exacerbate as the 2024 campaign grows closer. But the cost of failing to seek justice against a leader who may have committed these crimes would be higher still.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/opin ... icted.html

[Rach3]

From AxiosAm today.


"Powerful Republican lawmakers have rushed to endorse former President Trump for president in '24 before the Republican field has even formed.

Why it matters: That helps cement Trump's formidable lead for the GOP nomination as he heads into a legal blind alley — and will help him dig dirt on his political and legal foes, Axios' Sophia Cai reports.

Trump has been endorsed by five GOP senators and 37 House Republicans — including more than one-third of the GOP members on Judiciary and Oversight, which he's pushing to investigate President Biden and Manhattan's District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump, who is to be arraigned Tuesday in Manhattan, chats often by phone with House Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and GOP Conference chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to discuss probes of Biden and Bragg.

Jordan and Stefanik — also members of a new Judiciary subcommittee targeting the "weaponization" of law enforcement against conservatives — are key players in Trump's orbit.

Their committees have already tried — so far unsuccessfully — to get documents and testimony from Bragg's probe into hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Trump has kept a grip on the GOP base even as he's faced criminal investigations in New York and Georgia, and by the Justice Department.

Trump's campaign announced raising over $4 million in the first 24 hours after news of his indictment became public, and said 25% of the donations came from first-time donors to the Trump campaign.

The campaign tells Axios that 16,000+ volunteers signed up on his website in 24 hours.Nine of the 25 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee support him.

So do 11 of the 26 Republicans on House Oversight.

Other notable House Republicans endorsing Trump include Jim Banks (Ind.), who's running for Senate, Small Business Committee chair Roger Williams (Texas), Veterans Affairs chair Mike Bost (Ill.) and Ronny Jackson (Texas).

Trump's endorsements in the Senate: Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), J.D. Vance (Ohio), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), and Markwayne Mullin (Okla.).

Behind the scenes: In recent weeks, Jackson and Stefanik have been calling House colleagues on Trump's behalf, asking for endorsements, people familiar with the calls tell Axios.

Team Trump has been keeping close tabs on who has endorsed — and who hasn't."

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/01/under- ... n-congress

Sieg Heil.

[maestrob]

The Rule of Law Now Depends on Republicans

March 31, 2023
By David French

Opinion Columnist


“Probably not the best time to give up your AR-15. And I think most people know that.” With those words, spoken the night The New York Times broke the news that a Manhattan grand jury indicted Donald Trump, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson signaled the next, dangerous phase of the Trumpist assault on the rule of law. We began to watch a replay of the circumstances that led to the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

It continued. The former Fox News host Glenn Beck told Carlson that he predicted that by 2025 America would be “at war,” “we’ll have a currency collapse, and we will live in a virtual police state.” The Bill of Rights is “gone,” Beck said.

Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican businessman and presidential candidate, put out a video statement saying that America is “skating on thin ice as a country right now” and that “we may be heading on our way to a national divorce.”

Perhaps the most disturbing reaction came from Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is polling second to Trump in primary polls. Just after the indictment news broke (and without seeing the charges), he tweeted that the indictment was “un-American” and then ominously declared that “Florida will not assist in an extradition request” for Trump.

DeSantis’s statement was a shot at our constitutional order. Governors don’t have the constitutional authority to block extradition requests from other states. Article IV of the Constitution contains an extradition clause, which declares that when a person charged with a crime is “found in another state,” then he or she “shall” be “delivered up” and “removed” to “the state having jurisdiction of the crime.”

Federal statutes and Supreme Court authority require the “executive authority” of the state to “cause” the defendant “to be arrested and secured.” In all likelihood, Trump will surrender voluntarily to New York authorities, but if he does not, then the Constitution and federal statutes apply, and DeSantis cannot block Trump’s arrest.

Moreover, all of these immediate reactions come after Trump himself warned of “potential death and destruction” before the indictment and briefly posted an image of him holding a baseball bat next to an image of the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg. Trump also posted, “Our country is being destroyed as they tell us to be peaceful.” The implications are obvious.

To fully understand the Trumpist threat to the rule of law, it’s necessary to discuss what the rule of law means. A nation truly governed by the rule of law isn’t going to have a perfect legal system — no human system can be perfect — but it will have a double check against injustice. The rule of law depends on both substance and process, just laws and just processes, and respect for the rule of law depends on peacefully complying with the legal process even when you’re utterly convinced the underlying legal charge is wrong.

Indeed, in the absence of that understanding, social peace is impossible. We simply cannot and do not delegate to defendants and their supporters the decision as to whether to comply with legal processes. AR-15s are not a component of American jurisprudence.

All of this sounds painfully obvious. There are reasons the rote response of criminal defense lawyers to indictments is typically something like, “My client looks forward to vindicating himself in court” rather than, “My client is pleased the public is arming itself.” But Trump and his movement have placed even the most hallowed and fundamental American legal processes under immense strain.

After the 2020 election, for example, he attempted to force both unjust substance and unjust process on the American public. His legal arguments for overturning the election were frivolous and rightly dismissed by every court that heard them. Frustrated by the courts, Trump’s mob then opted out of legal processes entirely and stormed the Capitol. They refused, until cleared out by force, to respect the substance or the process of American law.

I have not yet seen the Trump indictment. I’ve expressed my doubts about the wisdom of the case based on publicly available information about the nature of the investigation. But I also know that we need to wait on both the indictment and the evidence supporting it to make any definitive decision about the merits of the charges. Informed speculation is still merely speculation, and there is a chance that the case is materially different from what we expect.

Regardless of whether the case is as weak as I fear it might be, Trump’s obligations are perfectly clear. Yes, he can certainly publicly dispute the charges. That is his right. But his ultimate path to contesting the district attorney’s claims runs through the courts, not the streets.

With their apocalyptic rhetoric, however, Trump and his defenders are priming his supporters to reject the rule of law, root and branch. The charges are deemed illegitimate, sight unseen. Just as with the election challenge, there is but one acceptable outcome — Trump wins. Anything else is taken as proof of the decline and fall of American democracy. And we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt after Jan. 6, that when you tell a sufficient number of Americans that the country is on the verge of destruction, then they’ll take matters into their own hands.

In a very real way, the American rule of law depends on the actions of both prosecutors and defendants, and even if (and when) prosecutors fail in their responsibilities, defendants don’t get to opt out of the process. Indeed, prosecutorial failure renders fair process more important, not less. Donald Trump will have his day in court, and that’s when we’ll truly learn about the justice of Bragg’s charges.

The rule of law is in Republican hands now. If they choose the course they took during the election challenge, history will remember them — and not Manhattan’s district attorney — as the instruments of American destruction. Responsible leaders urge peace. Responsible leaders respect the legal process. We know what Trump has said. DeSantis has already signaled he’ll defy the law. Who in the G.O.P. will have the courage to check the rage of the Trumpist mob?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/opin ... f-law.html