Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump is more than unprecedented. It is unsettling, unnerving and especially unwarranted.
In bringing these charges, Manhattan Prosecutor Alvin Bragg injects his office into the national presidential election in a manner reminiscent of Captain Ahab in the novel “Moby Dick.” Ahab’s monomaniacal obsession with catching the massive whale led to the death and destruction of nearly all around him, including Ahab.
I write this as a conservative Republican who is not supporting Trump for president in 2024. I think his time has passed and his ability to lead the nation is in the rearview mirror.
But that does not mean this is a persecution, er, prosecution that is appropriate. On the contrary, this is a weak, misguided case that harms justice. It also harms American politics.
This is true for several reasons.
First, the most relevant precedent is a federal (not local) lawsuit against former U.S. Sen. Jonathan Edwards, a Democratic vice presidential and presidential candidate. He used campaign contributions—not personal money, as is alleged in the Trump matter—to try to cover up an extramarital affair that produced a child.
A jury did not convict Edwards, even though the affair and child were not disputed in the trial. This issue was whether the payments were an illegal campaign expenditure, which the jury rejected. So why does Bragg think he will get a different outcome with much worse (for his case) facts? Hubris of a Captain Ahab type.
Next, this case confirms for the cynics and conspiracy-theory crowd that the application of justice in America is super-selective. The Clintons escape conviction despite clear perjury, mishandling classified material and more. Hunter Biden’s laptop has led to a stream of questions about payments to the Biden family by Chinese officials, not to mention criminal drug abuse allegations. And many are still waiting for the prosecutions for sex trafficking arising from Jeffrey Epstein “Lolita Express” flights to his private Caribbean island.
Finally, this is clear interference in the national election by a local official. Bragg brings spurious charges against the front-runner of the opposition party preparing to challenge incumbent President Joe Biden. True, no one is above the law. But the “law” in this case is based on a crazy weekend in 2006 that led to alleged payments in 2016 that are being prosecuted in 2023 as a felony, despite the statute of limitations’ having expired. This reeks of selective prosecution.
Moreover, to be successful on prosecuting the false business records charge as a felony, the judge must allow the trial to go forward to a jury with the alleged campaign violation noted above accepted as if it is a fact. More hubris.
This from a prosecutor who campaigned he would prosecute Trump even after the Federal Election Commission (responsible for policing campaign election laws), the U.S. Department of Justice and Bragg’s own predecessor in office declined to prosecute Trump in this case. Moreover, his key witness is a convicted serial liar who is already changing his story again.
This is not a case that should have been brought. It is not a case that inspires confidence in the criminal justice system. It is not a case that illuminates important truths that voters would not otherwise know (all the underlying facts were reported by The Wall Street Journal in 2016).
It would be better for the prosecutor to withdraw his case and let Trump’s star fade. But this prosecutor’s monomaniacal focus prevents him from seeing justice or the greater good. He should let the voters decide on the fitness of Trump for future office, not a New York City jury, before untold harm comes to our legal and political system.•
__________
Smith is chairman of the Indiana Family Institute and author of “Deicide: Why Eliminating The Deity is Destroying America.” Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Sure, the application of justice is super-selective. The same Republicans who found that Bill Clinton lying in a court of law about oral sex from an intern was impeachable behavior … tried to tell us that January 6th wasn’t. Spare me.
I’m just reminded of that guy who once said something like:
“Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults—unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It’s easy to see a smudge on your neighbor’s face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, ‘Let me wash your face for you,’ when your own face is distorted by contempt? It’s this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.”
Offering typically bad faith argumentation, there are numerous problems with Curt Smith’s knee jerk attempt to inoculate Trump pre-trial in the New York case.
First off, the thesis appears to be that Mr. Bragg is single-handedly responsible for bringing what is argued to be a weak case against former President Trump for something that should be a “let bygones be bygones” issue in the view of the writer. In reality, Bragg is the public face of an office with a staff of multiple people who understand that first, a grand jury of citizens must also agree that there is a “there” there before bringing a case. Apparently that judgement did lead to such conclusion by the grand jury.
Second, Mr. Smith fails to consider that failed prosecutions aren’t cost-free. Reputational damage to the prosecutor’s office occurs (note all the attacks from the right making the argument that the office can’t balance walking/chewing gum). Relatedly, the right wing disinformation/angertainment complex has continued to profess that attacks on the former president only strengthen his hand electorally. Are we to sincerely believe that a risk assessment by the dark, sinister, amorphous Trump haters group in the office hasn’t occurred that’s considered whether a failed indictment might assist him in 2024?
Third, it’s almost a certainty that Mr. Smith (and the many other pundits making arguments so similar they all sound exhaustingly copycat) is in possession of far fewer of the details of the case than those bringing it. Why not argue that the best all of us can do is let the process play out as it’s been designed in our justice system and let the chips fall where they may? Preemptive arguments in defense without proper knowledge only cement the notion with those of us more skeptical that when it comes to the former president, his own 5th Avenue comment was less hyperbole and more confession of the understanding of followers’ psyche and abject loyalty – laws, justice, infractions, etc all bedamned – a ticket on the Trump train is truly the zombie ride that never ends under any circumstances.
Next up would be the ridiculous argument of two-tiered justice, which does exist, just not in the way Mr. Smith, carrying water for TFG, whose imaginary world requires endlessly whining, projecting and externalizing (in the way only such a strong, very stable genius) imagines it. Jonah Goldberg had a great quote I read a few days ago that I don’t recall exactly about how it would require almost magical thinking to believe that in a lifetime and career of taking the low road and cutting corners as documented over and over, TFG has always managed to avoid consequences. The quote went on to note the natural relationship of cause and effect, something like, “If you spend your time juggling chainsaws for fun, it won’t surprise me when you lose a finger.” It’s two-tiered all right, and the second tier is finally catching up with the chainsaw juggler.
How about whataboutsm? I learned a valuable lesson on this at 16 years old when I rolled through a stop sign, following the car ahead of me. The town constable was right behind me and turned on those lights that strike fear into the heart of a young driver. He walked up to the driver’s window which I rolled down and offered his critique of my infraction. My ready response was that I had merely followed the car in front of me. Correctly, he informed me that while that may be so, he was lodging a complaint against me, not the driver of the car in front of me. So, excuse the yawn, mention of the Clintons (who I never voted for) and Hunter’s laptop (cue GOP drinking game) and John Edwards represent nothing more than irrelevant distraction from critical thinking about the issue at hand.
Sprinkled throughout, as boob bait for the bubba’s-2023 style is the notion of unfairness/persecution/victimhood. It was not so long ago that I identified with the Republican party myself, in no small part because of its resistance to and pushback on the culture of victimhood. Today, if there is any actual durable and consistent ideology associated with the GOP at all, it is whiny and grievance laden victimhood. Preaching the never ending gospel of zero-sum America from pulpits like Fox, slick demagogues like Carlson taking home his tidy 35 million annually in salary derived from stoking the overactive amygdalas of millions of credulous nightly watchers/pillow consumers is the epitome of all victimhood, all the time. See also, Lindsey Graham weeping on television, begging views to search their couch cushions for a few quarters to donate to the pitiable, persecuted victim.
Lastly, the closing thought would be hilarious if not so tone deaf and unselfaware. The thought that the act of pursuing this case, argued by Mr Smith himself as so insignificant and irrelevant that it would be best swept aside “before untold harm comes to our legal and political system” is preposterous coming on the heels of a chaotic one term nepotism presidency with 50% of the impeachments in our history, 100% of the bipartisan impeachments in our history and the first ever attempt to overturn an American presidential election and subvert the peaceful transfer of power, all the while trashing our allies and licking the toes of enemy genocidal dictators. Fox News just got hit with a 3/4 billion dollar settlement for knowingly promoting lies in the public arena in return for profits gained from customers it disdains and despises. Yet it is this case according to Mr Smith that will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Sure, Jan.
Admittedly, I rarely read Mr Smith’s viewpoints as I consider most of what he assembles to be rather mindless regurgitation and representation of bad faith rhetoric and dogma from those on the right who don’t or won’t acknowledge their inability to see the world holistically and in shades of gray. The belief that the right is always right and the lack of self-awareness to understand that nakedly partisan and poorly-reasoned circle the wagons defenses like this do nothing but salve the hurt feelings of other right-wingers – they do not grow the tent from the broad middle.
In my perfect, do-over world, there would have been one person – one single person – who might have exercised different judgment at each inflection point that has resulted in one of Mr Trump’s numerous cause and effect tribulations. If, at each of those forks in the road there might have been a single individual responsible for redeciding to take the path not chosen, perhaps TFG and his undyingly devoted congregation of the church of Trump might be spared this angst. Oh wait, there was one person (sometimes referred to as Individual 1) – but he was apparently too busy grabbing America by the p****. So I guess that brings us back to the walking and chewing gum thing……