-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
Trump, What a fundraiser: click here. Who else could possibly be indicted for a set of felony crimes, and do this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As my regular readers know, I write on Trump and write on Trump and write on Trump, and have done so since 2015, with my first column on him which was entitled "Is it Hair Trump or Herr Trump? In fact (and yes, there's a little ad here), I recently published, on Kindle to be sure, six volumes, about 310,00 words, of my columns on Trump, 2015-2021 (Click Here).
So yes, I was going to take a little Trump-time off. Even with the prospect of an indictment possibly coming up. Many folks were thinking "New York," but a couple of days ago it looked like it would be delayed there. The Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, although from the outside certainly appearing to be pursuing the case, also seemed to have certain matters on his mind before asking the Grand Jury that he had empaneled to deliver an indictment on Trump.
Would it be a misdemeanor or would it be a felony? The former might be easier to prove but the latter would carry much more weight. And then all sorts of experts, even long-time Trump opponents, like Andrew Weisman, the former lead prosecutor on the Steamship Bill Barr "Mueller Investigation," which Barr himself managed to sink (without, of course, going down with it), discussed the difficulties involved in seeking a felony indictment. But all signs pointed to a delay. And so, on Thursday, March 30, I posted the following tweet:
"thepoliticaljunkies@tpjmagazineMar 30
Click Here. Couldn't be that DA Bragg is in totally off-the-record communication with Spec. Pros. Smith who told him to hold off w/ the misdemeanor indictment until Smith files his for one or more felonies, on 'Mar-a-Lago,' and the Jan. 6 Insurrection? Could it?"
And then ooops, Trump is, in his very own words, "indicated." Yes, lots of folks picked that up, very quickly, and lots of folks noted it. It surely was fun, wasn't it? We know that Trump does not know the English language very well, except to attack with it (see just below), but this was a good one. And it certainly indicated which way Trump would have liked to see this one go: off the rails. Except that it didn't. And most seriously for Trump, although many observers, including many legal ones on the anti-Trump side, thought that a felony indictment would be a reach, this Grand Jury did vote for one. So, of course there are many issues that one could deal with. Let's just pick a few, at least for now, not necessarily in order of importance.
First, just a week ago, or so, at least looking from the outside at what was going on with the Grand Jury itself, what might have changed things, speeded things up, provided more evidence to support a felony indictment? Three names come to mind (and I am making no claim for originality here).
The 1st of them is Allen Weisselberg, long-time Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, who as is well known was convicted of certain financial crimes, (without, however, "giving up" Trump), and sent to a fairly short sentence at New York City's (gigantic) Rikers Island Jail. It happens to be a very unpleasant place, out-of-which Weisselberg certainly would like to get. As it happened, he recently replaced his Trump-type lawyer for an independent one. There is speculation that he may have provided testimony implicating Trump in one or more crimes, something he previously refused to do.
The 2nd of them is David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher who buried the "Stormy Daniels" story. He appeared again before the Grand Jury on March 26, 2023, and many have added an "st" to "again." The 3rd is Stephanie Clifford (stage name "Stormy Daniels," a name which she apparently prefers to use, at least in public), who at least "met with the DA" about 10 days before the indictment came down.
So, new information apparently came in. That which would have been testified to before the Grand Jury would have been under oath. And if Weisselberg and Pecker did not present new information, why would they have appeared before the Grand Jury at this time?
Second, there is the matter of a felony indictment and Trump's passport (and who knows if he has only one). In such a case, standard State Dept. regulations require that it be lifted. Since, as my regular readers know, I think that Trump will flee if things get too tight for him legally, a felony indictment at this time makes it stickier for him, in this regard. Trump and family members have developed close relationships with certain Middle Eastern powers even before he became President. And as it happens, countries like Dubai and the UAE do not have extradition treaties with the United States. Just sayin'.
Third, there is Trump's use of the "Six [more recently Seven] Magic Tricks that I have written on, on numerous occasions, in this space. They are, briefly:
1. He has always had one or more protectors and enablers, either personal, or financial or both. (Except on the political/Republican side, which don't count for personal matters, Weisselberg, who appeared to be the last-man-standing now appears to be gone.
2. "Always attack; Never defend," and its variation, lie-lie-lie, are out in full force.
3. "When you run into a problem, just sue." You may not win, and it may cost you some money. But a) you might win and b) with the endlessness with which civil litigation can be drawn out in the U.S. legal system, that other side may just get worn out. It is very well-known that Trump has used "sue, sue, sue" on the countless civil-law conflicts he has been in, suing to get a criminal indictment dismissed is not in the law, and while a defendant may ask for an indictment to be dropped if new evidence is brought to light, that does not seem to be a possibility in this care
4. In the whole of his business life, Trump has never been responsible to anyone else, either above him (except for Dad, of course) or even alongside. NOT applicable in this case.
5. Trump has (for the most part happily) lived his life surrounded by enemies. Exploiting this Magic Trick is at the top of the list, along with "Always attack, Never Defend," in this case. Man! Is he off and running on this one.
6. Trump is history's greatest con man. Which is where his massive fund-raising comes in. AND:
7. "Oh woe is me; everyone's against me, and it's so unfair[!]" Likely at the top of the list this time (especially when for example, the charging DA happens to be Black and he happened, indirectly, to receive campaign support from "George Soros.")
Fourth, it is absolutely fascinating to read the Republican-and-other-Trumpist responses to the news of the indictment. For example (from the New York Times of March 31, several articles):
1. Ron DeSantis said: "The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head." (As I noted in a tweet on March 27, "The Criminal Justice System is indeed weaponized against him. That's what the CJS is: the weaponization of Justice against criminals."
2. Mike Pence said: "The unprecedented indictment of a former president of the United States on a finance campaign issue is an outrage." One wonders what kind of charge the former V-P would consider justified, incitement to riot, perhaps?
3. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law Professor, and former G.W. Bush DOJ official, said, "Whether the indictment is warranted or not, it crosses a huge line in American Politics and American legal history." That's sure as shootin' true, Prof. But is your implication that that line shouldn't' have been crossed in this case? And it not in this case, in what kind of case would you sanction so doing?
4. Rep. Mark Green, Repub. of TN and chair of the Homeland Security Comm., said "Daniel Ortega arrested his opposition in Nicaragua and we call that a horrible thing." (Funny that he didn't' mention the imprisonment of "Lula" by Bolsonaro in Brazil.) Then, as if President Biden had any control over an indictment in the State of New York, for a violation of State law, Green said, "Mr. Biden, Mr. President, think about that."
5. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said that the D.A. has "irreparably damaged our country" and "the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account." Under which law(s) and for what might that be done, the Speaker did not say.
6. Pam Bondi, a Trump ally, said that "I believe that this will help President Trump politically. (Get that, he has been charged with a felony and she thinks that it will help him politically. Surely tells one something very important about the Republican Party and its voters, doesn't it?)
7. FoxNews host Jesse Watters said "the country is not going to stand for it. And people better be careful." (I wonder what he might have meant with that last bit.)
8. Of course, last week Rep. Jim Jordan and etc. had sent that letter to the DA "demanding that Mr. Bragg provide communications, documents and testimony about his investigation." One wonders under exactly what legal/Constitutional authority that process would be carried out. But Mr. Jordan appeared not to address that matter. Oh yes, the Repubs, just love Federalism, when it suits their purposes.
9. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the well-known expert on Constitutional law, contributed that observation that the indictment was unconstitutional. Over the years, for different purposes, I have read the Constitution pretty much all the way through, several times, and I can't recall a provision of it that could be interpreted in that way. But, hey, you learn something new every day.
10. Finally (in this set), on the air, the ever-helpful Tucker Carlson said --probably not the best time to give up your AR-15," and added that "Trump's indictment represents a 'political purge' against Republicans. He went on to claim that the "rule of law has been suspended for everyone who would consider voting for [Trump]." And we all know whose listeners Carlson's are.
Fifth (and finally). I have hardly read every statement on the indictment made by a Republican, or any other critic of the indictment-being-handed-down. But I did read quite a few of them. To me, it is absolutely fascinating that none of them said that the former President should not have been indicted, because he is innocent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum (from The New York Times, p. A17, NYC edition, April 1, 2023 (no foolin'). The following Republicans, generally known (in relative terms at least) to be in the "moderate" wing of the party, avoided "making a comment" at this time, or words to that effect: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, No. 2 Sen. Repub. John Thune, Gov. Noem, former Rep. Liz Cheney, former Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. Chris Sununu (NH), Sen. Scott (SC), and former Gov. Larry Hogan (MD). Former FL Repub. Rep. Francis Rooney, apparently, along with everybody else, not havingt seen the details of the indictment said "It's stupid and they have no case." Former VP Pence "condemned it as politically motivated." Many respondents expressed "concerns about the legitimacy of the case," that is, to repeat, a case they haven't seen. One characteristic, historically, of a fascist party (except in the case of the Empire of the Sun), is that it has a Supreme Leader with a complete hold over both its politics and its policies.
(Article changed on Apr 01, 2023 at 1:07 PM EDT)
(Article changed on Apr 01, 2023 at 1:14 PM EDT)