What Impact will the Trump Indictment Have?
For the first time in American history, a former president will face criminal charges.
Donald Trump has now been indicted. We don't really know yet (but we should after his April 4th arraignment) what is included in the indictment since, as of this writing, it is not yet public. In New York, judges routinely keep charges under wraps until defendants make their initial appearance in court. The indictment was bought by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, following a prolonged deliberation by a New York Grand Jury.
Arguing on his own behalf, former president Trump stated that Democrats had “done the unthinkable—indicting a completely innocent person in an act of blatant Election Interference.”
“Weaponizing our justice system to punish a political opponent, who just so happens to be a President of the United States and by far the leading Republican candidate for President, has never happened before,” he said. This is an interesting statement, given that the most weaponized Department of Justice (DoJ) in the history of our Republic was, arguably, the DoJ under president Donald Trump.
While there is very extensive evidence of this, one need look no further than how the Durham inquiry backfired to show a glowing example of the clear and present weaponization of the Trump DoJ. As the multi-year Durham investigation wound down, it was awash in accusations that unethical actions by special counsel John Durham and ex-attorney general William Barr “weaponized” the US Department of Justice to help Trump -- including strong criticism that Durham and Barr acted improperly in the nearly four-year-old inquiry. The New York Times published an exposé that suggested that the entire investigation was politically driven to placate Trump’s anger at an investigation that he deemed was a “witch-hunt”. And then there was an especially incendiary post that the former president of the United States wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, that featured a news article with a photo of Mr. Bragg on one side and Mr. Trump holding a baseball bat on the other. On the advice of his advisors, that post was eventually deleted.
Regardless of what happens with the New York indictment, it is unlikely to significantly influence the presidential campaign of the former president, one way or the other. The U.S. Constitution imposes no requirement that candidates for the highest office have a clean record, and there is a legal consensus that states are barred from imposing their own restrictions on presidential candidates, said Derek Muller, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law.
His legal battles will forever leave an indelible historical marker on Mr. Trump's legacy. There have been quite a few rather remarkable "firsts" in his short political career. Among other things, he became the first president to have been impeached twice and now the first former president to be charged with a felony crime.
In various social media posts, mostly on his own "Truth Social" channel, Mr. Trump has signaled potential defense strategies by saying that he "relied on Mr. Cohen’s counsel and that he was a victim of extortion by Ms. Daniels." This approach by the former president is simply a case of him employing his longtime political strategy of character assassination, accusing others of the actions he himself has taken, and calling on his adherents to support him in his “war" against the left.
Mr. Trump has also said that the payment and reimbursement of Mr. Cohen occurred so long ago that the statute of limitations—the legal period in which prosecutors can bring criminal charges—has passed.
Prosecutors will argue that the statute of limitations on the alleged conduct has actually not expired because Mr. Trump lived out-of-state for much of the past six years, which pauses the statute of limitations under New York law. Moreover, New York extended the time allowed to bring charges as a result of the COVID pandemic.
Congressional Republicans, as well as Trump himself reject the Rule of Law argument and contend that the entire matter is politically motivated.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has challenged this assertion. He wrote a letter to three Republican House committee chairs on March 31st in which he commented: “We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference."
The argument about political weaponization is a curious one -- particularly in view of the fact that the indictment came as the result of a recommendation from a Grand Jury in New York, following a lengthy period of investigation and testimony under oath.
Republican attacks on Mr. Bragg and the indictments have largely and curiously been nearly devoid of any attempt to frame an argument attacking the charges against Trump on the basis of the law. Instead, they have co-opted the long-time Trump strategy of ad hominem character assassination and discounting respect for the judicial process as a means of turning public opinion in favor of the former president. For example, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said “If you have a prosecutor who is ignoring crimes happening every single day in his jurisdiction, and he chooses to go back many, many years ago to try to use something about porn star hush money payments, that’s an example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office.” (note that his comment has no basis in fact, under the laws of the State of New York, as mentioned above). Even House speaker, Keven McCarthy, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Bragg was “abusing his office to target President Trump” and that House Republicans would “investigate any use of federal funds” by the Manhattan district attorney.
But this also is a dog-whistle, particularly since the indictment recommendation was reached not by Mr. Bragg, but by a New York Federal grand jury. Grand Juries are made up of 16 to 23 members and at least 12 jurors must agree before an indictment — a formal charge — can be brought against someone. Grand jurors are selected from the same pool of ordinary citizens who serve as trial jurors. It is difficult to avoid seeing these actions by Trump, Republican leaders, and his followers as an overt attempt at weaponizing public opinion with the objective of influencing the judicial process.
In the past, former president Trump has been quite open about his disdain for our democratic process. For example, in 2017, he characteristically referred to the Constitutional checks and balances on executive power as “archaic…really a bad thing for the country.” His role models seem to be authoritarian leaders like Turkish President Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, both of whom he has extensively praised. Trump and his team have tried to use the indictment to his advantage, hoping to energize his loyal base by attempting to position the investigation as part of a larger plot to derail his candidacy.
Democrats, on the other hand, have thus far taken a much more measured stance, and emphasize that former presidents should be subject to the same laws and legal processes as everyone else. Among Democrats and even a number of Republicans, there has been wide-spread condemnation of Mr. Trump’s efforts to agitate his supporters around the indictment.
That said, there are some legitimate concerns about the strength of the case and the potential impact that Trump prevailing at trial might have on the other legal actions pending against him. Even if the case against the former president moves forward, there's no guarantee of a conviction.
Regardless, what will likely unfold is an unprecedented moment in American history. And independent of what happens with the case in New York, former president Trump faces at least four other pending and major investigations into wrongdoing relating to his handling of White House documents, the election, the insurrection, and his finances. All of those cases are perceived by legal analysts to be stronger cases against him. And it will be difficult, even for a person as strident and coercive as Donald Trump, to make the argument that all of these cases are politically motivated.
Sources
https://www.wsj.com/articles/grand-jury-votes-to-indict-donald-trump-a9512240
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/donald-trump-indicted-new-york-grand-jury/43477531#
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/10/donald-trump-fbi-durham-investigation
https://www.voanews.com/a/how-us-grand-juries-work-/7029634.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-key-cases-civil-criminal-investigations-lawsuits-updates-2022-7
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/us/donald-trump-indicted-new-york.html?unlocked_article_code=YYxwFItUbTDjWjphR1Ebn75m3GfMLd2e8L4wRMXe1Euxz1UYyx3FFDEs9TDEew5fJB7lhjAfR0mN0t5jXpmXXXQFljYAMytsoVGBNyd-XnqRX3vW6ZfHqqZmbfpBuQQgln3lcQZCsWQ6iYBKLFsh0XsAbAxuL4oaY6x98TdkVU6iHm8TIY4X9A0dvtbzBWy4DEc3-J70MXyNs3M-3IaiQj9hiTQo_qVOhsxZTguJSgAhea0xO1Z1jj-py07PJKmtokfblZBu2iw7tvnrcU1AtaQdlXpTd0GgzPZykMjdjzXpbLrDHRU_OPqXDuV7MShsstCEdRFvNNsQeUZxOvVWvETUW5M