DONALD TRUMP’S LEGAL TROUBLES: CLOSING IN?

In late May news broke that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. had impaneled a special

grand jury in his investigation of former President Donald Trump’s business activities. Since then, it has become increasingly likely Trump and/or his top executives could soon face criminal indictments. Reporting

indicates prosecutors have several Trump confidants in their sights, including his main money man, Alan Weisselberg.  Reportedly, Vance has targeted tuition payments the Trump organization made for Weisselberg relatives as potential tax evasion.

On May 20, New York Attorney General Leticia

James announced her office would also  investigate Trump. A Vance-James combination could spell real trouble for Trump. She has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting political figures.  

The prospect of indictments against Trump’s closest business associates, and even the former president himself, raised the prospect of what a criminal trial of a former chief executive would look and feel like. That inspired differing responses from the three of us.

 

Woodson: Action and the Matter of Process

Throughout his presidency Trump demonstrated 

repeatedly that he aspired to be an autocrat.

Congress refused to act. 

                         

Losing the presidential election Trump incited an 

insurrection. Congress refused to act. 

Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy. But Republicans continue to follow him. It now appears that someone will act.

                                      

Donald Trump’s criminal misdeeds may finally undo him. Prosecutors in New York seem to think they have enough evidence to criminally indict and convict him. 

In prosecuting their cases, they must be careful  not

to deny Trump – or even appear to deny him - due process of law and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Due process and the presumption of innocence  are

fundamental rules of law in our democracy. Trump and his supporters will surely holler “foul” at the slightest provocation. The criminal proceedings must be meticulous, solid, and above reproach.

The prosecutors must demonstrate that they believe in the rule of law and not violate it in their eagerness to secure a conviction. If Trump behaved in any way in his business life as he has in public life, there will be plenty of evidence with which to criminally convict.

The prosecutors might want to take a page out  of

the playbook of Jerry Blackwell and Steve Schleicher, prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin trial. Let meticulous preparation and the rule of law be the order of the day.

 

Henry: Smoke and Fire

How does the American justice system handle a criminal defendant with 70 million loyal followers

who believe everything he says? That’s  the key question for me in contemplating the criminal probe of the former president now proceeding in New York. Since Trump’s 2016 campaign began a plethora of potentially criminal allegations swirled

around him – possible tax evasion, corruption in his foundation, alleged payoffs to porn stars with whom he supposedly had affairs, and

more. The list grows through the reporting on the current criminal probe. With as much smoke wafting in the air, isn’t there fire in the vicinity?

Then there’s the matter of Trump’s associates. The names have become familiar – Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, et al.  All have incurred the wrath of the law because of things that involve Trump. Could the boss have been innocent in each and every one of their cases?  

But, Trump was president and that makes this situation unique. Yes, Richard Nixon had a collection of criminals around him, but Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. He was never prosecuted for his crimes. Many of his associates went to jail, but Nixon went about his business.  Joe Biden certainly isn’t giving Trump a pardon, so the system must deal with him, with the backdrop of his widespread public support. That’s new for America.    

                       

Rob: A Meaningful Moment?

As much as my Democratic heart flutters at the

thought of Donald Trump in an orange jump suit and the Secret Service figuring out the logistics of protecting a former president in the Big House, that prospect isn’t what intrigues

me most about Trump’s legal troubles. Whatever possibility exists he might be called to account for the crimes he may have committed is one of the best things that could happen to the United States.

As a lawyer, I agree about letting the process play out, trusting in the rule of law, and all that business. Trump enjoys the same presumption of innocence as any criminal defendant.  Having said that, the country’s legal system would benefit from tangible evidence that the law applies to everyone. Trump

avoided indictment in connection with the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election because of the Justice Department prohibition on prosecuting a sitting president. We were told Trump remained subject to the law once he left office. Now, apparently, we’ll find out if that’s really true. It would do the country good to know that it is.

Politically, Trump has caused all kinds of mischief since he left office. He controls congressional Republicans who have taken unfortunate actions at

his behest, like blocking a commission that would have investigated the January 6 insurrection. Trump recently claimed he’ll soon be “reinstated” into the presidency, a ludicrous proposition. If nothing else, criminal indictments should occupy Trump’s attention, leaving him less time for such nonsense. Our politics will benefit greatly from such a respite.        

WE’RE BACK!!!!: JONESWALKERWILEY RETURNS AFTER A BRIEF HIATUS

 

NOTE:   We’ve been absent from this space since our November 13 post-election offering due mainly to personal issues. Rob contracted COVID-19, spent five days hospitalized, and has gradually mended at home since his release. Henry & family grieve the loss of two beloved family members. BUT WE’RE BACK AND READY TO TAKE ON WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE WORLD.

A New Administration Takes Shape

President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have been putting together their new

government. Generally, sane, experienced people who appear capable of doing the jobs they’re being tapped for make up the roster. We’d call these appointees “grownups”. None appear anything like the cult worshippers and sycophants around Donald Trump.

Challenges remain for Biden and Harris on the diversity front, despite an initial roll out that looks much more like America than the mostly

white male cast Trump installed. Biden has named an ethnically diverse White House staff, featuring

an all-woman communications team. The first cabinet choices include a Latino who’ll run the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for immigration and border control, the first female Treasury Secretary, and a black woman as United Nations Ambassador who should help restore America’s diplomatic clout.

Biden faced considerable pressure to name an African American or Hispanic to one of the Big Four cabinet jobs -- Treasury, State, Justice, or Defense. His choice of a black man, retired four-

star general Lloyd Austin, for Secretary of Defense alleviated some ethnic concerns, but created another problem. Austin left the Army four years ago, not seven as a statute requires for naming a former military officer defense secretary. Even some congressional Democrats balked at the idea of granting yet another waiver for a retired general (Trump got one in 2017 for Jim Mattis). General Austin’s stellar resume and the unique opportunity of the first black defense secretary probably will get him the needed waiver and U.S. Senate confirmation.

Biden still has some jobs he must fill and says 

everyone should wait until he’s done, then look at the overall picture. Fair enough, but given the racial composition of the voters who fueled the Democratic ticket’s victory, Biden can’t ignore pressure for high profile black and brown appointments.

 

COVID – 19 Runs Wild While Trump Whines

We’ve documented President Trump’s malfeasance on the virus many times. Another recitation of his sins serves no purpose. His current behavior demonstrates how much better off the United States

will be when he leaves office. By spending his time on a hopeless, destructive campaign aimed at overturning the result of the election instead of helping his successor better prepare for fighting the virus, Trump has shown his utter lack of concern for average Americans. New cases, hospitalizations, and deaths keep increasing in almost every state. Things are worse many places than they were during the grim days of the spring. Health experts say a brutal winter awaits, despite vaccines on the horizon that should help get the pandemic under control.

Trump’s pitiful, disgraceful legal attack on the election while the pandemic rages has been

overwhelmingly rejected by the courts. He’s had one minor legal victory and about 40 setbacks, often doled out by Republican judges, both appointed and elected. Some judges have been scathing in their characterizations of his evidence-less claims.

Trump shamelessly pursued this strategy while, for

the longest, not letting the General Services Administration open the government to Biden’s team, thereby facilitating a peaceful transition. History may regard Trump’s lame duck behavior as the worst thing about his presidency.

Pardon Who?

It’s also possible Trump could further disgrace himself and the office he holds by doling out dozens of pardons to cronies, contributors, family members, and maybe even himself. He’s already given his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, a broad pardon. He’s reportedly discussed granting his children pardons and giving

one to Rudy Giuliani, the  lawyer who has run his post-election legal crusade. Several prominent figures in the right-wing media have suggested he pardon himself, something no president has ever done and seems subject to significant legal challenge.

That a president can even think about pardoning himself results from the fact presidential pardon power is exceptionally broad. It is for a reason. The drafters of the constitution wanted a way someone could right unjustly wrongs, and no one could challenge that action. It’s doubtful, however, the founders thought presidents should pardon themselves.

In a 1915 case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that anyone who accepts a presidential pardon admits guilt. What, then, does Trump know that we don’t about himself and those on the purported pardon list, especially people who haven’t been investigated or prosecuted?

We should remember presidential pardons don’t affect state judicial actions. Trump faces multiple investigations in New York that focus on business and tax matters. Whether he pardons himself or resigns early so Mike Pence does the deed, a presidential pardon won’t save Trump from state investigations.

In the coming weeks we’ll address many pressing topics now on the national radar screen – the Georgia senate runoffs, Biden’s agenda, congressional action (or inaction) on pandemic-related stimulus relief, lingering effects of COVID -19 on the economy and on people individually, among others. Right now, we’re just thankful we’re writing again.