The headline on the Washington Post editorial put it well: "The Trump indictment's main finding: Do you want this person as your president?"
The Trump Train is barreling down two tracks at once: legal and political. While the ex-president already faces 78 criminal charges in three cases, with more likely to come in Georgia, he's also running for a second term and leading the Republican field by a wide margin.
Those tracks seem parallel, but they cross at a key point. Trump may – or may not – be found guilty of legal crimes. But the cases against him, laid out in detailed indictments, contain damning evidence of political crimes.
The Post editorial answers its own question: "Americans, beginning with GOP primary voters, will be asked to render their own judgments on Mr. Trump. If nothing else, Tuesday's indictment shows the grave threat that Mr. Trump posed – and how much worse another four years would be. ... Any fair-minded reading of the document leads to one, sure conclusion: Mr. Trump should never again be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office."
In the long run, a healthy democracy is better served by a political judgment rather than a legal one. A defeat by millions of voters would be far more definitive than a verdict by a dozen jurors.
There are practical considerations, too. Trump's lawyers are already trying to postpone any trial until after the election, and they might well succeed. But they cannot delay the voting. A political judgment will certainly be rendered 15 months from now.
Moreover, the three cases already filed against Trump pose certain problems. The charges in New York – that he paid hush money to cover up a fling with an adult film actress – seem trivial even to many ardent Trump foes. The charges in Florida, that he mishandled classified documents, are more consequential, but there's no evidence that his arrogance and sloppiness actually compromised national security.
The third case, which accuses him of undermining the election results and thwarting the democratic process, is far more serious. As Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe told the Post, "The crimes indicted are an order of magnitude beyond anything that has been committed against this country by any American citizen, let alone a former president."
And yet from a purely legal perspective, Trump's lawyers make a plausible counterargument. "This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy," his attorney John Lauro said on CNN. "And there's nothing that's more protected under the First Amendment than political speech."
Special counsel Jack Smith and his supporters make a strong rebuttal – that Trump was indicted for his deeds, not his words; that he crossed a line from legitimate advocacy to criminal action.
In a legal context, how a jury reads these facts and applies the law remains an open question. But in a political context there's no doubt, Trump's words matter – they matter a great deal. They reveal his judgment, his temperament, his overall fitness for office.
As the Post says of the latest indictment: "The document is full of evidence reminding Americans about Mr. Trump's character: He lies flagrantly; he disdains accountability; and he is eager to exploit the powers of his position to reward those who are loyal to him, punish those who aren't and bully the rest into submission."
Being a lying bully might not be a legal crime, but it sure is a political sin. Character flaws might not violate a specific statute, but they do violate the public trust. And a growing number of Republicans are willing to make that case against Trump, including his former vice president, Mike Pence.
"I don't know if the government can meet the standard, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal charges," Pence told Fox News. "But the American people deserve to know that President Trump ... asked me to reject votes, return votes, essentially to overturn the election." Concludes Pence: "Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States."
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who, like Pence, is running against Trump for the GOP nomination, makes a similar distinction between legal jeopardy and political venality. "What I believe is a much more important question than the criminality, in the context of this campaign season, is the fact that he's morally responsible for Jan. 6," Christie told The New York Times.
Morally responsible and politically responsible – for Jan. 6 and countless other crimes against normality.
That's why voters – not jurors – should render the final verdict on Trump.
Steven Roberts teaches politics and journalism at George Washington University. He can be contacted by email at stevecokie@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment