Manhattan Thinks About Prosecuting Trump

The Manhattan D.A. has received strong criticism for apparently deciding not to prosecute Donald Trump for business-related issues.  Will he find a way to relieve the pressure? 

I don't claim to know the intricacies here, but people in the D.A.'s own office strongly opposed his decision. There is a basic strong feeling, that to me more than "wanting justice meted out and thirsting for prosecutorial schadenfreude" that is "gross," to cite usually on the ball Anthony Michael Kreis.  His company was prosecuted.  His lawyer and a top member of the company were as well.  Trump is free and clear?  

Back in 2018, Rick Hasen -- the election law guy -- wrote how Trump's lawyer being prosecuted directly put him in the crosshairs.  Of course, the fact Trump actually is guilty of things does not actually seem to matter. There is always a reason somehow for him to "face no penalty," including in two impeachment trials. 

But, see that link for the clear path to showing the Stormy Daniels matter violated both the law and campaign finance laws.  Kreis on Twitter said it was a major "reach" to use it as the Manhattan prosecutor is reportedly in the process of doing.  I will not put much stock on yet another "we go him!" sort of thing, but I put more stock in the overall matter. 

At this point, the charges related to election subversion that may be brought in Georgia or by DOJ seem much more serious and important.

That's fine, and I agree with Rick Hasen on that too.  But, that doesn't mean the proposed felony charge lacks grounds or reason.  The NYT article cited implies it is a reach.  Who knows.  Maybe, it will be deemed one in part via a form of the qualified immunity business where something is obviously bad but since it's novel (in part since no one actually did something so bad, so there is no case law on it), there is legal immunity.  

I still do not think it is a reach.  I am pretty sure that there is evidence that Trump violated some minor law (his professional life has been bending the rules, breaking them from time to time along the way) during his Stormy Daniels scheme.  The fact he keeps on getting away with doing this, other than some financial liability from time to time, is not a grand reason for him yet again to do so now.  Cohen was imprisoned!

Rick Hasen almost five years ago (well, August 2018) explained how it was clearly part of a means to hide information for campaign reasons.  Trump might have been just usually his usual technique, but he was running for office.  It was therefore campaign-related.  I realize Cohen was prosecuted for federal crimes.  But, the overall scheme is relevant here.  It is not some big major reach that in the process it makes it a state felony.

The ultimate penalty for this "minor" felony (a felony was traditionally deemed an "infamous" crime, but now there are felonies deemed trivial, one supposes) might only be a few years. 

Still, the overall principle matters.  First, campaign finance integrity is a very important reform in recent years.  Multiple government officials and those running for office (the latest one George Santos) have been caught in this vortex.  There have been some serious efforts -- admittedly threatened repeatedly by the Supreme Court -- to address this issue. IT MATTERS. 

Second, Trump using sleazy cover-up methods to avoid problems for his sexual sleaziness flags a key concern regarding his campaign.  Lots of people were disgusted.  Now, some just swallowed and lived with it.  Still, as with the "grab their pussy" stuff, this was a serious matter that flagged how unfit he was.  There was a continual "oh we got him!" feeling that THIS sort of thing surely would deny him the presidency. Oh well.

It still matters.  It underlines the importance of his breaking the law -- if that is what he did -- to cover up his sexual activities.  The Stormy Daniels relationship was voluntary but he did his usual bend/violate the rules (including laws) bit in the process. Michael Cohen was imprisoned.  And, the same overall mentality led Trump to abuse women. Since he kept on fucking getting away with it.  So, no, I don't see this as merely trivial.

(ETA: See also, this Washington Post analysis that puts things in the context of the campaign. There is a somewhat less "people say this is a stretch" quality there as compared to the NYT.  

How much the moment in question would have mattered if other things -- as they tend to do, yes, but not quite this way -- didn't pop up is unclear.  But, it was clearly a campaign matter.  The report notes that the exact nature of the proposed indictment is unclear.) 

OTHER PEOPLE get harmed when they break the rules, including a young congresswoman who was flagged by Nancy Pelosi at the time as a rising star.  The case there largely was upsetting since it involved consensual activity, if at times some bad judgment, but I did see some evidence of violating ethics rules involving people she was involved in professionally. 

Georgia and the feds can continue their investigations and prosecutions. Manhattan can still prosecute Trump a more minor case that is a "sideshow" (to quote me elsewhere) only in degree.  The Stormy Daniels Affair (in a legal sense of the word) is a symbol of sorts that reminds us of what sort of person Trump is.  This includes someone who people always find a reason to oh so reasonably find grounds to get off the hook.  

Convict Trump in an impeachment trial? Oh no.  But, we aren't getting him off the hook!  No no.  Let's have a special 9/11 type ... oh wait, you are doing it the wrong way.  Criminal prosecution (since we can't do it while he is in office ... oh now he's running for office) ... no, there is a problem with how you are doing it.  No, this is too trivial.  And, on and on.  

It's gross.  

===

ETA: I'm going to tack on an aside.  Senator Mitch McConnell got hurt in a fall.  Jenna Ellis, Trump's former lawyer who just settled as part of a censure agreement for spreading election lies, for some reason posted a video of a turtle (get it?) falling as a joke.   

As cited by the headline ("cruel"), I saw more than one liberal-leaning source (including the guy behind Talking Points Memo) singling this out as distasteful.  You know, calm down.  Ellis is not someone many will feel sorry for, but a negative tweet I saw also suggests someone at Stephanie Miller's show also made a joke about him.   

Reports are he is okay.  The joke is infantile, but since he's okay, that is basically what it is.  There have been many more nasty things out there so this seemed to be a bit of virtue signaling.  McConnell has caused a lot of harm and some people are a bit mean here.  Okay.

I'm more concerned about other things myself.  I don't like the whole "punch a Nazi" thing where some actual Nazi being punched in public was cheered on.  Inciting violence might not be applied "reasonably" there, any more than harassing public figures in public places.  I also do not like the ridicule of religion I sometimes see, such as sneering about magical crackers (Holy Eucharist) or something in one case.  

The turtle thing was petty and singing out it seemed as much about sneering at Jenna Ellis as anything else.