Donald Trump is a scoundrel, but his indictment is nonsense
I have enough faith in our system to believe that these indictments will ultimately blow up in the prosecutors’ face, writes Steven Greenhut.
SACRAMENTO – “You’re so vain. You probably think this song is about you,” crooned Carly Simon in her classic 1972 hit song, “You’re So Vain.” In terms of political vanity, it’s nearly impossible to top Donald Trump. Everything is about him. But not this column. It’s about our justice system, even though it involves the former president.
As everyone now knows, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed felony charges against Trump. All 34 counts relate to allegations that he “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”
Prosecutors allege that Trump made an illegal $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet her story about a 2006 affair with Trump – something he still denies. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. The DA argues that because the Trump Organization depicted those payments as for legal services that it constitutes a fraud.
That’s typical of our justice system. Prosecutors target a potential wrongdoer, then ladle on dozens of charges. Rarely do such high-profile figures come into their crosshairs, so this approach often leads to plea deals among the overwhelmed defendant. The feds had passed on a similar indictment and, as Reason’s Jacob Sullum explained, prosecutors in the Manhattan office had for years “expressed skepticism about its viability.”
Trump, of course, used the indictment to keep himself at the center of attention, as he reportedly eschewed a chance to appear from Mar-a-Lago via Zoom and showed up in person in New York instead. The Trumpiest thing about the spectacle, however, are reports that Trump tried to delay the hush-money payment until after the 2016 election. That’s certainly in keeping with his reputation for stiffing his contractors and evading his bills.
Readers know that I am no fan of Trump. Throughout my adult life, Republicans have argued that character is destiny – yet they went all in for a president who exemplifies every imaginable bad character trait. He’s shredded democratic norms and tried to overturn an election with preposterous claims that apparently even his cheerleaders at Fox Newsthought were bogus. He’s devoid of principle – beyond whatever helps Donald Trump.
Nevertheless, bringing weak charges against him will only boost his standing, embolden his legions of followers and further undermine the democratic system that he has spent years undermining. It keeps Trump in the limelight when many of us wish he would go away. It does no harm to indict a former president per se. Other stable democracies have done so. It can reinforce the lofty notion that no one is above the law.
Yet that’s only true if the charges are substantial. I agree with Sen. Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican who voted twice to convict Trump after impeachment: “I believe President Trump’s character and conduct make him unfit for office. Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.” The prosecution, he added, “sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public’s faith in our justice system.”
Admittedly, Republicans who depict Trump as a martyr are hard to stomach. Did they object when his supporters chanted “Lock her up” about Hillary Clinton? They didn’t protest when Trump made these comments: “BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN – GOT CAUGHT!!! But these people should be indicted.”
He has a long history of calling for the prosecution of his opponents. If you don’t want your guy prosecuted on flimsy charges, then it’s best not to advocate for the prosecution of your opponents on flimsy charges.
That’s my biggest problem with the Trump movement. It’s not based on any principle, but is built around a cult of personality. Trump seems perfectly fine with the aggressive use of government prosecutorial powers – and he even joked about police roughhousing defendants. But when the former president or his supporters are on the receiving end of the process, they suddenly want to defund law-enforcement agencies.
The tribalism Trump has exploited led to this predictable result. We always defend our side and double down on attacks on their side. Principles are meaningless, except when mustered in service to our agenda. Many national conservatives are even arguing against the political neutrality that our founders envisioned. Sure, the idea of using any available power to subdue one’s enemies is energizing – until your side is on the receiving end.
I have enough faith in our system to believe that these indictments will ultimately blow up in the prosecutors’ face. But despite Trump’s vanity, this issue isn’t really about him. It’s about our justice system and our politics. Perhaps one day Americans will be sensible enough to look at prosecutorial overreach with an eye toward making the system more just for everybody.
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.