SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
law and order
Despite 4 Indictments, Trump Will Still Be the GOP Nominee
His ability to campaign may be limited by his legal woes, but his supporters will vote for him anyway.
Aug 25, 2023
It’s election season, and the leading candidates for president are barnstorming from state to state on the stump-speech circuit. Or, in the case of former president Donald Trump, to keep court dates.
As they say: priorities.
Trump was indicted last week, along with 18 other defendants, in Fulton County, Georgia. That makes the fourth jurisdiction in which the former president is facing criminal penalties, following the cases in Washington, D.C., where he was charged in federal court with conspiracy to overturn the election (four counts), and in Florida for illegally possessing classified documents (40 counts, including superseding indictments, for obstructing the government’s efforts to get them back), and in New York for paying off an adult film star to cover up an affair (34 counts of falsifying business records).
In Georgia, Trump himself faces 13 counts in the latest indictment, out of 41 total charges that also target 18 co-defendants. Trump’s charges include violating Georgia’s racketeering laws, and several that stem from the conspiracy to submit a false slate of electors to the Electoral College—and which also include the “absolutely perfect phone call” to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to “find 11,780 votes” to change the outcome of the election.
If four indictments seem excessive, it’s because Donald Trump was excessive in committing crimes in multiple jurisdictions.
Among the flurry of indictments and addenda and superseding indictments, it’s hard to keep track of which ones are important. The answer is that all of them are vitally important. If four indictments seem excessive, it’s because Donald Trump was excessive in committing crimes in multiple jurisdictions.
In the words of another former president, Trump is in deep doo-doo. But that doesn’t mean we can let down our guard.
We need to come to terms with an uncomfortable truth: the fact that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president. His ability to campaign may be limited by his legal woes, but his supporters will vote for him anyway. We’re entering a presidential election phase where the Biden-vs.-Trump rematch is 99% certain, and that 1% hedge has only to do with both candidates being decades older than the average American president.
No viable candidate is going to emerge on the Democratic side to challenge an incumbent president with a largely successful term in office under his belt. First, we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a new darling of the right whose dangerous anti-vaccine crusade has been shown to be just the surface of his conspiracy-mongering and transphobia. Second, we have Marianne Williamson, whose “politics of love” nonetheless failed to win over American hearts in 2020, and whose own views on vaccines are likewise suspect, even if they’ve since been eclipsed by those of RFK Jr.
And it’s been obvious from day one that the Republican Party is setting itself up to repeat the 2015 primary race, where Trump picks off, one by one, a large number of third-tier politicians too cowardly to challenge him directly. Just as in 2015, he won’t even need a majority of the Republican vote, because he’s the only candidate who will have more than 20% to begin with.
(The one possible exception to this is former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he’s in the race specifically to try to take Trump down. More power to him if he does, because no one can defeat Trump by ignoring him—he has to be confronted head-on and destroyed. Maybe Christie is the one to do that, but I’m still waiting for evidence.)
In 2023 though, Trump’s already polling well above 50% among Republicans, despite the indictments. That’s because the GOP since 2015 has largely purged itself of its establishment wing, leaving the extremists in control. (Meanwhile, 53% of Americans actually approve of the indictments, and they may be hurting Trump’s overall favorability as the campaign season begins.)
And, while the indictments seem to be fueling a modest dip in Trump’s national polling numbers, the indictments are boosting his polling numbers within the Republican primary. That’s because his followers believe, with all the fervent religiosity of cult members, that the Big Bad Woke Government is persecuting loyal, patriotic Republicans. The charges only feed their persecution complex, which is what feeds the hand-wringing commentators urging us not to prosecute Trump, out of fear of what his supporters will do. As if his supporters haven’t already tried to violently overthrow the government.
Let’s disabuse ourselves of another fantasy. Even if Trump goes to prison because he’s found guilty, or he’s put in jail for contempt by a judge who refuses to tolerate his taunts and threats, he will continue running for president, he will win the GOP nomination, and he could indeed be reelected. There ought to be a law, but there isn’t. The narrowly divided Congress has been unable to do the sensible thing and pass legislation barring him under the 14th Amendment from holding public office, or even just in response to his two impeachments.
I wouldn’t put much stock in the recent “conservative argument for barring Trump” articles either. They’re interesting arguments, and the law professors making the case are perhaps even correct that the 14th Amendment prohibition is automatic, with no Congressional action needed. But most state GOP officials who have the power to boot Trump from the ballot aren’t going to do that without a court order, and this is a party that has increasingly shown its willingness to ignore the law entirely.
This doesn’t mean Trump won’t eventually go to prison. But it’s very unlikely to happen before the next election, given the inevitable appeals and Trump’s expertise in delay tactics and avoiding accountability. After all, he still insists he won the 2020 election. This could go on for a long time.
But there are signs we will see some major results before the election.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who brought both the classified documents case in Florida and the election interference case in Washington, D.C., has indicated he isn’t going to accommodate Trump’s usual tactics and requested January 2 as a date for Trump’s election interference trial. Smith even indicated he’d allow the documents trial to be postponed to accommodate this one.
That’s important for two reasons. One, voters have a right to know if Trump is guilty or not guilty before casting their votes. More importantly, if Trump wins, he can, and will, simply dismiss any federal cases that are still pending. Maybe he’ll even settle the cases with a payout from the government to himself to cover his (likely inflated) legal fees. He may pardon himself if he’s both found guilty and wins the election, because his handpicked, subservient attorney general won’t stop him—and that’s even more of an argument to make sure Trump never again obtains power.
Speaking personally as someone who grew up on the East Coast in the 1970s and ’80s, it was pretty obvious back then that Trump was, at best, a tawdry huckster with a long line of shady deals and business failures to his name, both his own and others’.
Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan also appears to be resistant to Trumpian antics, granting Smith’s early request to prevent Trump from sharing trial evidence publicly, as he is almost certainly going to do. She’s also issued a warning to Trump, indicating that she will take any necessary measures to stop Trump from intimidating witnesses or tainting the jury pool with his trial-by-tantrum strategy.
In 2016, someone who hadn’t been paying attention might be forgiven for not expecting the rampancy of criminal behavior once Trump ascended to national office. But the mass media can’t be forgiven, since it’s their job to be paying attention. And, speaking personally as someone who grew up on the East Coast in the 1970s and ’80s, it was pretty obvious back then that Trump was, at best, a tawdry huckster with a long line of shady deals and business failures to his name, both his own and others’. He was a regular of the New York Post’s “Page Six” gossip column and grocery store checkout-line magazines. By extension, the “serious” media should have done a better job warning American voters about someone they only knew from highly scripted appearances on The Apprentice.
In 2023, mass media no longer have an excuse, and largely they’ve been fairly good. But they’re still acting as if the Republican nomination isn’t a foregone conclusion. And the possibilities of more Trumpian violence, let alone another January 6-style insurrection, can’t be understated.
The United States is quite imperfect in living up to its ideals, but the general trend has been to get better at it. Allowing someone to escape justice just because he’s a former president, or because we’re afraid of his followers, undermines our commitment to have justice for all.
Fortunately, it appears we aren’t going to allow justice to be denied in this case. Prosecuting (and convicting) Trump won’t change the minds of his loyal base, and it may indeed push some of them over the edge. But it will show that the rest of the nation is willing to live up to its principles.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Legal System Punishes Defendants and Their Relatives—Before They’re Found Guilty
Many hardships are forced on defendants and their families pre-trial, including the heavy pre-trial financial burdens imposed by the bail system and attorneys.
May 28, 2023
I still remember hearing the words—“He shot her!” These words would soon change my life and completely upend my perspective on a role model I once idealized. He helped me learn to play piano, showed me what a computer looks like behind all those screws and plastic, and taught me to calculate the area of a square. His encouragement was an early stepping-stone on my journey to a PhD in mathematics.
When I received a phone call telling me that he had been arrested for violence, I was first in denial and did not have a strong reaction; though hours later, I would feel both anger and sadness, and I would question whether he truly committed this awful crime. That questioning is important because as of yet, he is still awaiting a final verdict regarding his case. If we are to truly provide justice, our legal system should not punish this defendant or any other individuals prior to the receipt of a “guilty” verdict.
Yet our judicial system often inadvertently creates other “victims” beyond those of the crime itself. Despite the call of our legal system to presume the innocence of a defendant until and unless found guilty, many hardships are forced on defendants and their families pre-trial, including the heavy pre-trial financial burdens imposed by the bail system and attorneys. Research has shown that, in comparison to costly attorneys paid for by the defendants themselves, free court-appointed attorneys obtain worse sentences for the accused, indicating that people who are poor may be unable to appropriately defend themselves, while the rich are able to overturn or significantly reduce their sentences.
Why should I have been held accountable and put in this position? I did not commit any crime, but because my relative had no one else to turn to, his bills became a punishment inflicted on me by the bail system.
I have direct experience with the large financial punishment imposed on defendants and their families pre-trial. My relative’s bail bond was set at $50,000—an amount that I could not even begin to imagine being held accountable for, with only about one year of full-time work experience after my graduate studies.
Yet despite having never committed a crime myself, it soon became clear that the burden of this alleged crime was my responsibility. I received multiple calls in the coming days regarding bail bond agents—from agents themselves as well as my relative. They all explained to me that the accused could not assume responsibility for the bond himself; I would need to take responsibility for the bond. As the only non-minor kin that the defendant maintained regular contact with, the financial liability fell on me for the bail bond as well as all of his other affairs. I soon found myself paying his internet, electricity, water, and other bills. Why should I have been held accountable and put in this position? I did not commit any crime, but because my relative had no one else to turn to, his bills became a punishment inflicted on me by the bail system.
As I paid the defendant’s bills, my credit score began to drop with the extra charges, ultimately falling more than 50 points. This story is not only my own, but the story of many who are unable to afford a bond.
While in jail because he was unable to post bail, my relative informed me of illegal activity a witness had engaged in—activity that I thought was relevant to his case. In response, I called the inmate’s free court-appointed attorney. However, after hearing only a small parcel of explanation, the lawyer told me that he was done listening to me, as he felt the discussion was irrelevant to my relative’s case.
Because the court-assigned lawyer would not listen to me, I began the process of holding consultations with other attorneys, trying to find well-suited representation. My relative said he was only provided a couple minutes on the phone each day—simply not enough time to have these consultations himself, and definitely not enough to successfully find an attorney on his own.
After I selected an attorney and paid an initial retainer, my relative was afforded a bond reduction hearing, at which multiple witnesses appeared. It was the intention of the one aforementioned witness, in particular, to fight the bond reduction and try to keep my relative in jail. In response to this, my attorney informed this witness that he was aware of her illegal activity. This simple yet effective warning convinced the witness to forgo the pushback against the bond reduction, allowing the defendant’s bond to be reduced down to $10,000. The very same information that the court-appointed attorney refused to hear allowed the inmate’s bond to be extensively reduced to an amount that I could afford.
The outcome of my relative’s bond reduction is not unique. Studies indicate that sentences are often harsher when free court-appointed attorneys are utilized. While some believe that poverty is not the only factor contributing to this disparity, the fact still remains: Had the court-appointed counsel been the legal representative, my relative’s bond would not have been as easily and readily reduced. For my relative, the acquisition of our attorney afforded him the ability to be released from jail on bond. If I had not been able to retain this attorney, my relative may very well have stayed in jail, and I would have continued to be punished as well—despite having never been even charged with a crime—through the necessity of handling his affairs and continuing to pay legal fees for a decent attorney who actually listens to their clients.
The reality is that with wealth comes options—the option to have an attorney of your own choosing, the option to secure release from jail through payment of a bond, etc. Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds cannot afford these options and are subjected to severe disadvantages in our justice system. Due to racial disparities in wealth, these individuals are often people of color.
This systemic problem has persisted far too long. It is time for us to work to end this disparity and provide more resources for individuals in our judicial system. Indigent defendants can be provided with more and better options for legal counsel. The cash bail system can also be largely eliminated, as Illinois is currently considering. With our current technology, there are alternatives to cash bail that we can consider—such as providing non-violent offenders who can’t afford bail the option to be released with an ankle bracelet for tracking purposes.
While some may oppose Illinois’s proposed legislation, saying that it should be reworded, altered, or revoked, a driving motivation behind the measure is engrained in our court system—the idea that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In its current form, the bonding system often imposes pre-trial punishment despite “presumed innocence.” This punishment is felt not only by defendants, but also by their innocent family and relatives. This was most certainly the case in my experience, and I hope to one day see a world where no other innocent individual is forced to face this hardship—a world where our legal system is much more equitable and just, with proper resources and options for people who are indigent as well as minorities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Perhaps Protests Will Help People Recognize That Israel Is Not a Country of Law and Order
On mass demonstrations, false hope, and why Israel's Supreme Court is no friend of the Palestinian people.
Mar 16, 2023
As hundreds of thousands, throughout Israel, joined anti-government protests, questions began to arise regarding how this movement would affect, or possibly merge, into the wider struggle against the Israeli military occupation and apartheid in Palestine.
Pro-Palestine media outlets shared, with obvious excitement, news about statements made by Hollywood celebrities, the likes of Mark Ruffalo, about the need to “sanction the new hard right-wing government of (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu”.
Netanyahu, who sits at the heart of the current controversy and mass protests, struggled to find a single pilot for the flight carrying him to Rome on March 9 for a three-day visit with the Italian government. The reception for the Israeli leader in Italy was equally cold. Italian translator, Olga Dalia Padoa, reportedly refused to interpret Netanyahu’s speech, scheduled for March 9 at a Rome synagogue.
One can appreciate the need to strategically use the upheaval against Netanyahu’s far-right government to expose Israel’s fraudulent claim to true democracy, supposedly ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. However, one has to be equally careful not to validate Israel’s inherently racist institutions that have been in existence for decades before Netanyahu arrived in power.
The Israeli Prime Minister has been embroiled in corruption cases for years. Though he remained popular, Netanyahu lost his position at the helm of Israeli politics in June 2021, following three bitterly-contested elections. Yet, he returned on December 29, 2022, this time with even more corrupt - even by Israel’s own definition - characters such as Aryeh Deri, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, the latter two currently serving as the ministers of finance and national security, respectively.
Each one of these characters had a different reason for joining the coalition. Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s agenda ranged from the annexation of illegal West Bank settlements to the deportation of Arab politicians considered ‘disloyal’ to the state.
Netanyahu, though a rightwing ideologue, is more concerned with personal ambitions: maintaining power as long as possible, while shielding himself and his family from legal problems. He simply wants to stay out of prison. To do so, he also needs to satisfy the dangerous demands of his allies, who have been given free rein to unleash army and settler violence against Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank, as has been the case in Huwwara, Nablus, Jenin and elsewhere.
But Netanyahu’s government, the most stable in years, has bigger goals than just “wiping out” Palestinian towns off the map. They want to alter the very judicial system that would allow them to transform Israeli society itself. The reform would grant the government control over judicial appointments by limiting the Israeli Supreme Court’s power to exercise judicial review.
The protests in Israel have very little to do with the Israeli occupation and apartheid, and are hardly concerned with Palestinian rights. They are led by many former Israeli leaders, the likes of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former minister Tzipi Livni and former prime minister and leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid. During the Naftali Bennett-Yair Lapid stint in power, between June 2021 and December 2022, hundreds of Palestinians were killed in the West Bank. 2022 was described by UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Tor Wennesland, as the “deadliest” in the West Bank since 2005. During that time, illegal Jewish settlements expanded rapidly, while Gaza was routinely bombed.
Yet, the Bennett-Lapid government faced little backlash from Israeli society for its bloody and illegal actions in Palestine. The Israeli Supreme Court, which has approved most of the government actions in Occupied Palestine, also faced little or no protests for certifying apartheid and validating the supposed legality of the Jewish colonies, all illegal under international law. The stamp of approval by the Supreme Court was also granted when Israel passed the Nation-State Law, identifying itself exclusively as a Jewish state, thus casting off the entirety of the Arab Muslim and Christian population which shares the same mass of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Rarely did the Israeli judicial system take the side of Palestinians, and when little ‘victories’ were recorded now and then, they hardly altered the overall reality. Though one can understand the desperation of those trying to fight against Israeli injustices using the country’s own ‘justice system’, such language has contributed to the confusion regarding what Israel’s ongoing protests mean for Palestinians.
In fact, this is not the first time that Israelis have gone out on the streets in large numbers. In August 2011, Israel experienced what some referred to as Israel’s own ‘Arab Spring’. But that, too, was a class struggle within clearly defined ideological boundaries and political interests that rarely overlapped with a parallel struggle for equality, justice and human rights.
Dual socio-economic struggles exist in many societies around the world, and conflating between them is not unprecedented. In the case of Israel, however, such confusion can be dangerous because the outcome of Israel’s protests, be it a success or failure, could spur unfounded optimism or demoralize those fighting for Palestinian freedom.
Though stark violations of international law, the arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions and the everyday violence meted out against Palestinians, mostly take place within Israel’s legal framework. All of these acts are fully sanctioned by Israeli courts, including the country’s Supreme Court. This means that, even if Netanyahu fails to hegemonize the judicial system, Palestinian civilians will continue to be tried in military courts, which will carry out the routine of approving home demolition, illegal land seizure and the construction of settlements.
A proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country’s legal framework.
Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu’s attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law. Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular