I have often said that I am reticent about states charging ex-presidents. There is federal jurisdiction for this case, and there is federal jurisdiction for the Georgia case, a phone call across state lines to threaten, and an attempt to alter a federal election. I believe that charges so volatile as charging an ex-president should be charged by the federal government and be brought by the entire country. I fear the ramifications in red states going forward finding ways to charge an ex-Democratic president.
This is the case that – by far – looks more political than any. I hope that there is tax fraud and conspiracy charge tucked into those indictments because those such charges would look less political. Let’s face it, even though Trump must be held accountable by the state of New York, and it is right to charge him, this is the weakest case by far and the easiest for him to beat unless there is tax fraud and conspiracy charges included, which is entirely possible.
Much more importantly, it gives Trump the advantage to scream that he’s being politically persecuted. When indictments come down the line, Trump has already set the tone that ALL of this is just about politics because it started with the least serious crime. Again, I am not saying he should not be indicted. I am saying that it’s terrible from a Democratic perspective that Garland didn’t jump faster and bring indictments for obstruction of justice in the files – the strongest case, and January 6th, the most deserving, or the Georgia case because it’s all on tape and Willis used a special grand jury to investigate it for a long time. Unless this case also involves tax fraud and something more serious and more recent, this case is the least tenuous and the one most easily defended.
The judge may find that jurisdictional laws prevent this case from being brought as a felony because if the charges only involve paying off Stormy Daniels, then falsifying business records in New York state law classifies this as a misdemeanor unless it’s part of another crime. IF the judge says prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to prove FEC violations as part of the state action – which legal scholars say is possible – it takes it down to a misdemeanor and at that point, prosecutors should probably dismiss the case because it looks even more political to charge a misdemeanor. Additionally, Trump’s “Melania defense” could work in a “beyond a reasonable doubt case,” because a divorce in the campaign or as president would deeply hurt him politically. He may be found innocent. That will affirm that the judicial system works (that the jury wasn’t politically motivated) but will wrongly make the DA look more politically motivated to the MAGAs.
Thus, it’s by far to Trump’s advantage to have this case filed first, even though it needs to be filed.
For those who blast me for blasting Garland for the pace of his investigations – the one where the DOJ is JUST NOW subpoenaing Mike Pence, you’ll also have to argue with Adam Schiff, who just an hour ago was on MSNBC saying the exact same thing, that we’re in this position because of the painfully slow manner by which DOJ has investigated this. Adam Schiff is not only a former prosecutor but has seen the evidence, even evidence we haven’t seen, and he’s angry that Trump hasn’t been indicted on the much more serious crimes, the ones that do not look as politically motivated.
It needed to be done but it’s a Trump advantage that he wouldn’t have if the files case and something on January 6th, even obstructing Pence from doing his Constitutional duty (A serious crime according to experts on MSNBC and easily proven by subpoenaing Pence 18 months ago. Disadvantage Democrats, and that’s why this morning’s Quinnipiac poll shows that even a small majority of Democrats believe there is some political motivation in this case.
****
[email protected], @JasonMiciak, SUBSTACK: MUCH LEFT ADO
States and localities shouldn’t, unless there is cause & feds couldn’t (because wink wink your AG says “forget about it”) or wouldn’t (well maybe… still way way way way too early for Garland to even consider! [ffs] ).
CNN reported there are over 30 charges in this indictment. I think that is way more than the Stormy Daniels thing merits. So, I do think they have more serious things than hers. Whenever federal charges are filed, he will certainly say the justice department is weaponized, like he has been saying. All we can do is wait and see what develops.
” unless there is tax fraud and conspiracy charges included, which is entirely possible. ”
Not just possible, but likely. Remember Trump corporate has already been found guilty of these charges and ex-C.E.O. Weissman has new, non-Trump lawyers.
We DON’T KNOW what the charges are. Don’t jump to conclusions!
PJ, I so respect your opinions bc they’re so sharp. But I made very clear that there could be stuff in there that takes it out of that context.
But from the media’s perspective, for 5 days, this is about Stormy – at least on the Right side.
So hang with me. Criticize me. Absolutely. YOu give me strong points to consider. But do know that I emphasized that as much as I could.
Again I’ll say I believe DOJ could have and should have moved faster, but I still believe even with what you’ve reported on Schiff’s comments federal charges were going to take time to build. Being a lawyer yourself you know that once charges are brought and jeopardy attaches that’s it – and we’ve seen the bitter consequences of Trump being let off the hook. I recall the withering criticism of Nancy Pelosi for not pushing for House Democrats to vote articles of impeachment against Trump right away. Eventually she stood aside because there was really no choice BUT her reasoning was spot-on. She knew damn well having Trump dead-t0-rights guilty there was no way in hell he’d be convicted in s Senate trial. AND that getting a pass would make him even worse.
She was right. Twice in fact.
Machiavelli noted if you strike at a prince you must kill him. Trump is no prince of course but the concept holds. And the laws Trump broke aren’t easy to prosecute. It has been noted (and accurately I believe) countless times how prosecuting Trump is like going after a major crime boss. Sometimes you can’t ever charge them for their worst crimes and have to settle for what you can get. Al Capone on tax evasion being p4rhaps the most well-known and glaring example. But the only way you get convictions is by starting with bit players on the edges of things and working your way in until you have leverage on enough key players to make charges against the actual target stick.
That doesn’t happen in a few months. Or even a year.
And, as I noted in a comment yesterday Garland has had an entire agency, one critical to our democracy to rebuild. THAT is where I’m furious with him and believe he’s failed us. With everything else he had on his plate supervising the J6 investigation, the largest and most complex the DOJ has ever undertaken was management, legal and political malpractice. By summer of 2021 when he’d had time (remember, he wasn’t confirmed until March thanks to Yertle’s pissing in the soup!) to take stock of all he had to do he should have done what even the village idio6 knows needed doing – appoint a Special Counsel! With broad powers, hiring authority and a hefty budget. Had he done so a lot more would have been done by now and Trump would have in fact been hauled up in federal court.
Now, as for the NY charges I keep coming back to two things. Michael Cohen was convicted and went to prison for the Stormy Daniels payoff scheme. And the case noted Cohen acted at the direction of an unindicted co-conspirator named as “Individual One” which of course was Donald J. Trump. The second thing is why Trump wasn’t indicted which is also in tw3 parts. The first and controlling one is a DOJ POLICY (not a law, just a legal theory cum opinion in memo form) that says they can’t indict a sitting President. But that aside the TRUMP DOJ let SDNY nail Cohen. And that same office was looking at other stuff and making progress, then Barr came along and shut it all down!
That my friend is why, even bearing in mind your concerns about hard core red states “retaliating” against a Democratic President down the road is why state charges can and should be brought if there’s a solid case. It’s another way of holding even Presidents accountable, especially since Presidential pardon powers don’t extend to state crimes/convictions. Keep in mind the “Lock her up” chants over Hillary. Oh how the GOP tried. A baker’s dozen of Inspector Javert congressional investigations and a Trump DOJ searching for something, ANYTHING with which to charge her. Then you had the whole Durham Special Counsel Investgation that looked at Hillary and even Obama and his administration to find something to charge top people with. All he got, even with Barr himself pitching in was a couple of weak sharts that barely left a brown spot in the undies!
You really think some state can do better? Absent actual serious crimes I don’t think so, and it costs serious money to conduct such investigations as would be needed. Most of the reddest states that might want to think about trying are poor as hell to start with. They don’t have the resources to handle regular stuff, much less take on this type of thing. And unlike the federal govt. states have to balance their budgets each year.
So, while your concern is a valid one I don’t think it’s nearly as likely to come true as you think.
everything donald has done his entire life has been a crooked corrupt con and grift. I don’t care what order they’re in, just start to slap this bitch down and keep slapping, like the firehose of lies and insults we’ve endured since the golden escalator. why are we mollycoddling this domestic terrorist? neville chamberlain? peace in our time? haven’t we learned that lesson? and don’t worry about all those big talk camo cosplay closet queens. they’ll be in court blubbering for mercy on their way to jail just like those j6 pussies.
You tell ’em, Dennis! The media are mincing around this story. For what that criminal has done to this country (let me count the ways!) we deserve a perp walk in handcuffs. Like TRUMP has said about protesters being removed from his rallies, “Don’t be so nice! Rough him up!” (paraphrasing)
I love this response, said with total sincerity.
But the Right is already talking violence. Marj referenced the civil war. Trump put out a thing about how much patriots are supposed to take, they are begging for a violent attack, just by someone else.
I don’t think that would’ve been the case had Garland started earlier. Everyone who attacks me for criticizing Garland, given the complexity of the case and need to be sure and all that, might be forgetting how late he started. By the documents requests from DOJ and the very “SUDDEN” flurry of subpoenas only after Congress started televising its findings tell me that they were not working meticulously on this matter for the first 18 months. They were ignoring it.
Just my opinion. It’s too late to fire Garland and have it do any good.
But if Biden had it all over again, I would hope he would’ve considered:
1: Adam Schiff
2. Kamala Harris for A.G. and not V.P. (bc she was so badass as an AG)
Garland has utterly failed, IMO. And the other proof I have is that Smith is moving blindingly fast, Garland’s DOJ didn’t.