Trump Indictment and a Clash of Values
So, our former president has been indicted on charges he paid off a porn star to prevent disclosures of their tryst, disclosures that might have spoiled his election bid in 2016.
Donald Trump has done so many things worthy of criminal prosecution, my temptation is to yawn and look away.
But the historic indictment of a former president requires some attention even if the likelihood is it leads to nothing – except perhaps his re-election to the presidency next year.
And therein lies our problem.
Trump launched his election bid last November and he has been viewed as a front-runner although stiff competition is waiting for a stumble. Of comfort to potential opponents, it has seemed Trump’s support was softening.
But the indictment out of New York has changed the calculus and galvanized Republicans, even those who find his conduct reprehensible.
Another Threat
Once again, the nation faces an existential threat from a man whose sole goal in re-taking the presidency seems to be a desire to wreak revenge on his perceived enemies. Democracy and the rule of law be damned.
If you are not scared, you should be.
As usual, The New York Times provides ongoing coverage and essential background on this historic case.
Progressives, Democrats and left-leaning independents might wish the charges against Trump grew out of some tectonic development, perhaps the Jan. 6 insurrection. Those charges may yet come.
But for now, we must settle for charges stemming from a tawdry encounter between Trump and the porn star, Stormy Daniels, and the former president’s efforts to keep her quiet.
Clashing Values
There is a significant clash of values here.
On the one hand we are expected to believe in the rule of law, to believe the law should be applied fairly and evenly and that no one person should be above the law, including former presidents.
But alternatively, we are expected to value democracy and democratic ideals, fundamental to our governance system. In Americans, those values are essentially genetic. And the reality is this indictment might well send the former president back to the White House where he will challenge, almost certainly dilute those very values.
The rule of law vs. the future of democracy.
As The Times reports, Trump has responded to his indictment by going large, essentially staging a reality show with a cliff-hanger ending. His campaign staff said over the weekend that he raised $4 million in small donations in the first 24 hours after the indictment was revealed.
He will be arraigned in Manhattan Tuesday morning, as this column is posted, just another TV spectacle, but with the dreary old Manhattan courthouse as his stage.
The Response?
And there will be the usual sideshow. He has called on his supporters to mount a massive protest. The nutjob Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA), echoed Trump’s call for street demonstrations essentially suggesting they be violent. In December she said Jan. 6 rioters should have been armed.
Legal experts have serious doubts about the New York indictment. The payoff case was investigated by the feds while Trump was in office. Eventually, his lawyer was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws and sent to prison. But the Justice Department declined to charge Trump, in part because it is accepted that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.
Now, the Manhattan district attorney has filed charges involving violation of those same federal campaign laws. It may be too a reach too far.
Trump still faces significant criminal investigations. The Justice Department is looking into his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and his mishandling of classified documents after leaving office. State prosecutors in Georgia are investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn that state’s 2020 election results.
Should charges develop in any of those cases, it is certain Trump will continue to play his victim card, will continue to raise enormous sums, and continue to put his Republican challengers behind him.
The Response
The first post-indictment polls show the charges have not really dented Trump’s base support. In the USA Today/Quinnipiac University poll, about 75% of Republicans say a criminal indictment should not prevent Trump from running. The law agrees.
And a hypothetical contest between President Biden and Trump is a statistical toss-up.
Meanwhile, Trump’s support in Congress has solidified as Republicans, even his erstwhile opponents, rush to his defense while arguing the New York charges are politically motivated.
I know it is not the most popular notion among progressives, but if it were in my power, I would pardon him of all charges and send him to the back of the stage where the footlights do not reach.
But the two states cases are outside President Biden’s pardon authority, and he has said repeatedly he will not pardon Trump should federal charges develop.
It is well within the realm of possibility that in a rematch of the 2020 election, the results will favor Trump.
And the candidate who has said at his rallies that “I am your retribution” will have the power to be just that.
The rule of law vs. the future of democracy.
Thanks, Steven for this clear, and thought-provoking article! I appreciate your perspective.
Very well written and detailed column. Covers all aspects. I would add here that this indictment also sets the precedent for future and that no one is above the law. So now if this happens to the other political party leaders then it wont be considered a political vengeance.
I hope the statement, “In Americans, those values are essentially genetic” was intended as hyperbole or as a metaphor for what’s deeply ingrained as societally accepted in America. I grew up with American peers and parents who were decidedly Fascist, a couple even openly declaring themselves “Nazis” back in the 1970’s. A relative by marriage had declared herself “Communist”. Values, including staunchly democratic ones, are handed down from generation to generation in teachings along with other tenets relating to fair-mindedness and compassion. Without them, American democracy becomes Platonic “democracy” as “rule of the mob” and Plato didn’t have faith in that. If the latter prevails, and citizens revert to the raw pursuit of power, prestige, and prosperity at any cost, as many Americans have historically valued above love for one another, then the resulting peril will be profound.
Ms. Kaylor I do not disagree at all. If not hyperbole it was metaphorical. My point was these are deeply ingrained values in most Americans. We know, of course, that there are huge numbers of people today who do not accpet those values. Thanks for noticing the exaggeration.
You should not use links to the New York Times. They have a paywall that blocks us folks who do not want to pay to subscribe to their service. Please provide alternative links to freely available content, or copy the NYT content that is relevant and quote it under “fair use” provisions of copyright law.
The lede here is not “charges he paid off a porn star” but that he clearly violated campaign finance law, conspiring with his attorney to do so, as the attorney confessed and was convicted for doing. Trump wasn’t charged then as he was a sitting President and could have merely pardoned himself, and any investigation of a sitting President would have been very difficult in any case. But the crime was not paying hush money to a sex worker, that is just salacious journalistic misrepresentation for which you should know better, given your credentials. Shame on you.
Actually you are not correct. If you read the indictment, the fundamental charges are the paying of hush money. The prosecutor then elevates the misdemeanor charges by saying the payoff counts become felonies because the payoff was in service of election fraud and violation of campaign finance laws. The problem here, as the column notes, is that the federal campaign finance laws are federal and the state has no jurisdiction. The prosecutor hopes the connection between misdemeanor and felony election fraud will fly with the courts and eventually a jury. All of that is in the column along with expert beliefs that the case is a reach. It is perfectly accurate to say the indictment stems from a payoff to a porn star. Because it does. I try not be salacious. But you simply cannot avoid the initial payoff when writing about the case. I am not a legal expert. But my sense is this case will not survive judicial scrutiny. You are absolutely correct about the federal case. The DOJ will not prosecute a sitting president. The lawyer was convicted but Trump escaped indictment. That is why New York/Manhattan DA stepped in. You got that right. If you have the time, tell me what you think about the state’s case. What do you think will be the outcome?
One other quick note. It is difficult to find thorough reporting outside a pay wall. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post also charge for access. So do all Gannett and McClatchy papers. There are times I can use a good Associated Press piece or even the BBC. On rare occasions I will find a good CNN article. But I do not use most cable news sources. The Times and Post are always the most complete and authoritative. But I will try to find alternatives.
Politico may be a good non-paywall source, Steve.