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.        

The Russians are Here!

When we think of the 1960s in which we grew up, aside from the details of our own lives, we think most often of the civil rights movement and the struggle for racial justice that so defined that decade -- not unexpected for three black men from the American South. Others, coming from a different place, might focus on anti-war protests, the counter culture, or the beginnings of the feminist movement. We are confident, however, that every American who lived through that era recalls the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. "The Russians are coming" had a real, fearful meaning.

Russia v. U.S. We thought of the Soviet Union as "Russia." Fifteen countries made up the Soviet Union before it broke up in 1991, but we ignored Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia, and 11 others. Only Russia, the biggest one, mattered. The United States maintained a massive conventional military force, deployed thousands of nuclear missiles, built fall-out shelters, and set up a huge intelligence operation mainly aimed at protecting the country against aggressive acts by "Russia." America devoted a huge portion of its GDP to defending its interests against "Russian" adventurism. In October 1962, a young President even took the world to the brink of nuclear destruction because of the threat posed by "Russian" missiles in Cuba.

This history makes all the more interesting the relatively mild reaction in the United States to reports that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into computers of Democrats, then releasing their embarrassing e-mails with the purpose of helping elect Republican Donald Trump. Whatever the differences between the old Soviet Union and current day Russia, until now, a fundamental tenant of American policy, and of our cultural understanding of the world, has been that the United States and Russia have different interests. Right now, the U.S. and Russia differ mightily over the Syrian conflict. Despite business deals and cooperation on the international space station, the two countries have non-aligned world agendas and the societies vary greatly. By and large, Americans haven’t cared much for Russia during most of our lives.

While some members of Congress call for investigations in to this matter, we don’t hear an outcry. One poll showed only about a third of Americans believe the hacking influenced the election. This story hasn’t consumed the mainstream media, talk radio, or social media. Many other controversies went more viral than this one. We dare say the 1992 "nannygate" scandal resulting from Bill Clinton’s intention to nominate corporate lawyer Zoe Baird as Attorney General generated a hotter firestorm than has the possibility Russia interfered in a basic aspect of American democracy. We don’t suggest nobody cares. Speeches have been made and statements released. But, the measured response raises questions we think deserve thought.

Admittedly, the public doesn’t have the full story. The government hasn’t released details of the intelligence showing Russia tried to tip the electoral scales. Much of what we know comes from anonymous sources. We also recognize no one can show that Russian interference determined the outcome. But, as we’ve written, we subscribe to the theory that many little things caused the 2016 result, and this could have been one of them. We emphasize, however, whether the interference changed the outcome isn’t the point. The fact remains that the U.S. intelligence community has determined that a foreign power, one traditionally hostile to American interests, interfered in our electoral process and the country isn’t up in arms about it.

The President’s reserved reaction fits with his "No Drama Obama" persona. He’s said he didn’t talk more about this before the election so as not to look like he was putting his thumb on the scale. He says now that in deciding how much to reveal about what we know and how we know it, he must weigh the effectiveness of a U.S. response against the right of the American people to know the details of something that affects their security and way of life. These considerations, at least facially legitimate, seem to have prevented venom from spewing out of the Obama White House.

Not so Noble We think, however, the muted American reaction stems from other, less noble motives. Dispirited Democrats, mindful of being cast as sore losers and seekers of scape goats, have decided to leave this to their Senators and Representatives to investigate "in due course" while they focus on other things, like picking a new Democratic National Committee Chair and figuring out a winning strategy for future elections. Republicans, giddy with the prospect of controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, want to do nothing that delegitimizes Trump’s victory. Republicans have warmed to Trump, but only because he won, giving them the opportunity for the legislative and executive mischief they’ve so craved the last eight years. No matter how much they hate the Russians, and many of them do, they’re taking Trump’s lead on this.

Trump’s coziness with Russia and its leader, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, has been well documented and we need not repeat it here. What further evidence do we need than the selection of a Secretary of State who received the Russian Order of Friendship award? Trump’s followers – his true believers – probably agree with him on the merits about the Russians – they’re not our number one enemy and we ought to forge closer ties with them. Traditional Republicans, like Mitt Romney, who don’t buy that at all, kept relatively quiet on this. They don’t want to endanger Trump’s presidency, and their own access to power, by riling up the country about Russian hacking and interference into our election. Self-interest Trumps everything else.

John F. Kennedy, in his 1961 inaugural address, warned that the danger of riding the back of a tiger lies in the possibility of ending up inside. The United States for years applied that axiom to Russian bears. Maybe we still should.

Outrage, anyone?