The Trump Indictments

Prof. Melissa Murray is a co-host on the Strict Scrutiny Podcast, has written often about reproduction-related issues, and a few times guest hosted on MSNBC. Andrew Weissman was a Mueller prosecutor (and sometimes critic) and is a legal commentator, including on Jen Psaki's show. They worked together to put out:

The book provides helpful details and commentary. 

The introduction, for instance, lists (with details) multiple foreign leaders who were prosecuted in above-board ways. We have a detailed cast of characters. Introductions to each indictment. And, multiple annotations (interior commentary) to clarify them. 

The book suggests that the New York prosecution is the only one that might (in a Strict Scrutiny interview, Murray said the two split over this; I get the idea Weissman is the doubter) be argued to be a selective prosecution. There is what I think is a dig regarding the low bar to meet for an indictment which is only inserted for that indictment.  

I disagree. Michael Cohen was already prosecuted and imprisoned for related crimes. The Trump company and its CFO were prosecuted for fraud-related charges as well as being liable civilly. The perversion of a presidential election, involving a corrupt cover-up significantly important to the results, provides additional reason this is not a run-of-the-mill business crime.  

(I forgot a notable allegation. The completion of the crime occurred while he was in office. Shades of Spiro Agnew.)

One other complaint I would have -- as a whole it's a worthwhile book -- is the suggestion that the 1/6 federal investigation did not look like the Justice Department wanted to address the big guys until the 1/6 Committee operated. 

As noted by Emptywheel and others, the Justice Department collected a lot of relevant information (such as regarding Rudy Giuliani) before then. I think there is room for debate here. Nonetheless, that should be noted. 

OTOH, the commentary does note that the streamlined 1/6 indictment, only against Trump, made sense. This includes not using a novel insurrection charge. The alternative (see Georgia) would cause a lot of delay. Of course, we had that already. We would have a lot more.  

I think that constitutionally, the count regarding interfering with a government proceeding -- the electoral count -- meets the test for "insurrection." Some did want Trump to be indicted under the specific federal indictment statute. Again, this would have resulted in legal challenges.  

The federal indictments are "speaking" indictments, which provide a narrative. The New York indictment is more dry, but a statement of facts provides a narrative. The Georgia indictment has a ton of detail.  A striking bit is the attempt in the documents case to destroy evidence. 

I find it hard to keep all the details here straight. A book that provides everything all in one place (there is another volume available with less commentary) is very helpful. It is also very helpful to have a cast of characters. Historical books should provide this along with key dates to help readers.

We can easily overdose on all the procedural goings on in these cases. It is still helpful to provide a basic informational volume such as this one. People who provide guidance, including those at Just Security and Lawfare, are much appreciated.