We also slowly (the big confirmation happening yesterday) got the news that indictments are coming against Trump regarding mishandling documents. TPM has the basic right stance to take while [many] Republicans rant and rave:
But it’s worth resisting that feeling, stepping back from it. It grants Trump too much. If you brazenly commit crimes again and again there’s a good chance you’ll get charged with a crime. That’s normal and commonplace. It is as predictable as night following day, the order of the seasons.
Trump has gotten away with too much over the years. He basically saw civil penalties -- now and then -- as the cost of doing business. Enough occurred involving civil rights violations, personal wrongs, and so forth to warrant deeming him persona non grata. Our nation took a different path.
This has made some people mad and cynical. I'm in the mix here to some degree. The whole editing of the emolument clauses out of the Constitution as if it is the Third Amendment or something. The ability to stonewall and obstruct and not even have Mitt Romney vote him guilty for that impeachment content.
And so forth.
But, things did happen. His charities, "college," and business were targeted successfully. And, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. More civil suits are forthcoming. And, the criminal charges have begun, including in New York City, where the attacks basically are everything but "he didn't do it."
Everyone knows he did. As David French, a conservative sort, noted he is not above the law:
It would place presidents outside the rule of federal law and declare to the American public that its presidents enjoy something akin to a royal privilege. But this is a republic, not a monarchy, and it is right to make Donald Trump answer for the crimes he is accused of.
There are some who were disdainful of the ability and desire of the Garland Justice Department (a few still sneer at his nomination to the Supreme Court) to prosecute. The time that passed did bother me but justice is slow. Normal serious crimes can take years. This was a multi-part criminal conspiracy also involving lots of others. Very well its novelty is a result of dubious things like Ford pardoning Nixon and one party refusing to take part in justice. But, we are stuck with the complications.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Note that these objections do not apply to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. No executive pardon can be given for a Section Three disqualification. The proceedings cannot be delayed because a decision must be held before elections are held. And Trump would either be found eligible or not by the Supreme Court. Just saying.
He argues that the criminal prosecutions will encourage him to go all in to be elected president. And, it won't hurt his cause. GM doesn't say it but the cynic might think it better for Trump to be a candidate with a cloud than someone else. But, on that front, it is not clear. Maybe, Trump is the best candidate the Republicans have (sadly for them/us on some level).
[ETA: I can expand on this ad nauseam, more so than I have, but two things. If Trump isn't going to win anyway, the disqualification is of limited value. Two, it often is seen as a sort of punishment. And, a big approach is to say "How dare you take it away from the voters." On that front, that "alternative" here is not quite even that at all.]
This doesn't erase the importance of prosecuting him. It isn't a one-sided thing. His getting away with his crimes puts him above the law. It encourages others in the future to follow that theme. A prosecution also regularly helps prosecute other people and bring to light various things. The limited risk of his chances increasing is only one part of the equation. And, the risks are debatable. They also can be reduced if we as a society understand our own civic responsibilities here. The fight is worth it.
The possibilities of delay do not generally stop us from prosecuting crimes. It took too damn long for him to get civilly found liable for sexual abuse. Was that not worth it?
And, how does GM's method help here? The process will take time. It will be subject to extended appeals (we saw that in the emoluments matter; he ran out the clock). And, there will be arguments it won't even be "ripe" unless he won. Or, it will be up to Congress, a political question, for them to decide when counting votes.
Finally, there is the issue of pardons. First, the 14th Amendment has a mechanism to remove the insurrection (and Trump is not guilty of only that) related barrier to office. At any rate, if the people vote into office someone who wants to grant him a pardon, we are in a bad place at any rate. Moving aside from the possibility it will be a result of anti-democratic forces (see 2000 and 2016), it also is what the "people want." So be it.
Granted, you can say that a conviction followed by a pardon does vindicate the rule of law, but this is probably not what the prosecutors pursuing Trump have in mind.
GM was against the second impeachment (on weak grounds as I noted at the time) and put an artificially high barrier to conviction in the first. He is the sort of "Never Trumper" who always finds a way, even while assuring us he is against Trump.
Take this. Why wouldn't the rule of law be vindicated? Would a person who supports the death penalty not try to obtain a death sentence since the next governor might commute it? Why isn't investigating and prosecuting, to the extent everything is in your power, doing all you can to vindicate the rule of law?
There are always problems and chances of failure long term. Prosecutors in general focus on their jobs, not what might happen if someone else comes into office. It's asinine to try to find reasons like this to have a narrow focus on your hobby horse.
Trump is guilty of a range of crimes. He is not above the law. The provision should be applied to him but it alone is not enough. And, the prosecution will help with the application of the provision. It's a joint thing.
He isn't charged with insurrection (the indictment was dropped today after I first wrote this; it has more counts than previously suggested) here. But, there is a separate investigation for that (maybe it's related somehow?) and criminal prosecution would be a way to determine if "insurrection" for 14A purposes occurred.
The provision does not require a full-press criminal prosecution. Every single person subject to it from acts arising in the Civil War didn't first have the protections of a criminal trial. But, it is going to be one of the various questions that would arise when applying it to Trump in the 21st Century.
GM supported (as do I) a House bill that provided a civil procedural process that gave the Attorney General a chance to seek a finding that it is applicable. The report of the 1/6 Committee flagged the issue. But, there was no sign of much concern over the matter. The legislation isn't likely now.
The prosecution would be useful here, including an overall feeling that someone is guilty of mishandling national defense information is "insurrection-y, "especially after the House charged him with it, 57 senators agreed, and others basically did so and let him off on other grounds. So, yes, let's do both.
There seems to be a game going on at times when assurances of consequences amount to smoke. Oversight is resisted since impeachment is an option. Then, impeachment is deemed problematic somehow, but prosecution is said to still be open. At least after the term of office is done. But, then, something else. The 14th option is yet another way to find a way not to do anything really, claiming otherwise.
We are getting consequences. Some major sentences in the 1/6 prosecutions. And, now Trump is feeling the heat. It's time. Not enough especially after a lifetime of getting away with it. But, we have to do the best we can.
The Indictment Itself
A standard approach is to try to minimalize, even if as a whole something is bad. It is a standard strategy and how we handle our lives in various moments. Everything seems bad, but we can focus on something specific. Doesn't seem too bad, really, right? We can adapt to it.
This is a standard technique used by Trump, defenders, and enablers. It is repeatedly a sham. It is a sham in the civil suits. It is a sham in the New York City prosecution. And, it is a sham here. You will hear it at times. The "real" thing should be election-related (1/6 or Georgia).
And, then something will be wrong there. Don't believe it. His wrongs might be different but each is wrong. He surely shouldn't get a break. And, this is serious too. National security is involved. He was given a lot of rope. He obstructed the government repeatedly. This is a trend. At some point, you cannot just let him get away with it.
And, he and his family have for a long time done business with people and businesses against the well-being of the United States. This underlines why he had no f-ing business in power. Ditto for people like George Santos or Marjorie Taylor Greene or any number of people we are stuck with.
People running against Trump up to a point granted he crossed a line though they all in some fashion still supported him and still are willing to do so in various respects. So much that GM basically assumes they will pardon him if he himself (whose election is taken as a possibility, calmly cited without comment on its basic travesty) isn't elected.
[The one thing I skipped in my summary last time was the Saudi Arabia union with the PGA Tour. It might not be final. We know about Kushner and that country. Then, there is China, the Soviets, and more. This is something that factors into prosecutorial discretion.]
There is one more thing to toss in here. There is the basic irony of Hillary Clinton allegedly being unfit for mishandling documents. Exactly what she did wrong there was a bit hazy, but it received lots of press. The former head of the FBI (now with a mystery novel!) played his part. The richness of this given who was running against her has been cited by various people.
(Compare Bush43 whose family values reputation put against Bill Clinton was not really a sham. From what I know, the guy was not a womanizer. It's true that on a wider level, Democrats were better for family values.)
A link to the indictment with NYT annotations is provided. It is one of those "narrative" indictments that tell a story. We have such things last Trump's comments on the importance of document security and excerpts of conversations. These documents should get more attention. It's a nifty way to explain what is at stake.
(Here is a link without a paywall.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!