Former President Donald J. Trump has a lot at stake in the federal criminal case against him. He could, in theory, go to prison for years. But if he ends up in the dock before a jury, it’s no exaggeration to suggest that American justice will also be on trial.
The first federal indictment in history against a former president poses one of the most serious challenges to democracy the country has ever faced. It represents either a validation of the principle of the rule of law that even the most powerful face responsibility for their actions or the moment when a large part of the public becomes convinced that the system has been irretrievably corrupted by partisanship
Mr. Trump, his allies and even some of his Republican rivals have embarked on a strategy to promote the latter view, arguing that President Biden and the Democrats have hijacked law enforcement to take out their opponent. stronger for re-election next year. Few, if any, bothered to wait to read the indictment before supporting Mr. Trump that it was just part of the “BIGEST WITCH HUNT EVER”. Now it’s an article of faith, a default tactic, or both.
Jack Smith, the special counsel, and his prosecutors knew the defense was coming and have worked to avoid any hint of political motivation with a by-the-book approach, securing the consent of judges and grand juries along the way. In addition, his prosecution laid out a damning series of facts based on security camera videos, text messages and testimony from Mr. Trump; even some who have defended it in the past say it will be harder to dismiss the evidence in a courtroom than in a court of public opinion.
In the public sphere, however, it can be a one-sided fight. Mr. Trump and his allies can scream as loudly as they can that the system is unfair, but prosecutors are bound by rules that limit how much they can say in response. To the extent that Democrats defend the prosecutors, it may only reinforce the point that Mr. Trump is trying to make the audience he is trying to reach.
“I think the verdict on democracy ultimately comes down to Republican leaders and Republican voters,” said David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida who left the party during Trump’s presidency. “Their current weaponization narrative is dangerous and destabilizing, but it seems to reflect the early consensus of the party. If they don’t pivot soon to due process and faith in the system, I think we could have very dark days ahead. I worry. “
Polls suggest that Mr. Trump has moved to persuade at least his own supporters that all the accusations against him are merely political. After he was indicted in March by the Manhattan district attorney on state charges related to hush money paid to an adult film actress, the former president’s support among Republicans rose rather than fell.
While 60 percent of all adults polled by CNN after the charges were passed, 76 percent agreed that politics played a role in the prosecution. Regarding the effect on the American system, 31% said the impeachment strengthened democracy, while 31% said it weakened it.
All this indicates that the credibility of the system is at stake in a way that it has not been before. Many have criticized the American justice system over the years for systemic racism, excessive punishments, mistreatment of battered women or other issues, but they have not commanded the megaphone of the presidency. When past presidents like Richard M. Nixon or Bill Clinton had problems, they aggressively defended themselves, but did not question the entire system.
“In 1972 and 1974, Republicans participated as bona fide members of the process,” said Garrett Graff, author of “Watergate: A New History,” published last year. “They saw their roles as lawmakers first and Republicans second. They were definitely skeptical” of the allegations against Nixon initially, “but they followed the facts where they led.”
Even Nixon’s sharp-tongued Vice President Spiro T. Agnew was careful to disparage the justice system in general. “Agnew, of course, was Nixon’s attack dog, but primarily against the press, not against the FBI or the special counsel,” Mr. Graff.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, holds nothing back as he attacks “the ‘Thugs’ at the Justice Department” and calls Mr. Smith a “Deranged Lunatic”. Republicans such as Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona have called for the dismantling of the FBI “We have now reached a stage of war.” he wrote on Twitter Friday. “An eye for an eye”. Elon Musk said the authorities were showing up “Much greater interest in going after Trump compared to other people in politics.”
Several of Trump’s competitors for the Republican presidential nomination joined. Former Vice President Mike Pence compared the indictment to leaders of “third world nations” who “use a criminal justice system in their country against their predecessors.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said “the weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society.”
The former president’s defenders generally do not address the substance of the 37 charges against him, instead making a case for selective prosecution that resonates powerfully with many Republicans: What about Mr. Biden? What about Hunter Biden? What about Hillary Clinton?
They point to the origin of Russia’s investigation into Mr. Trump, citing the recent report by special counsel John H. Durham that harshly criticized the FBI’s handling of the case even though it did not present any new breakthrough revelations of politically motivated misconduct or lead to the conviction of no important figure.
They point to inquiries from the Republican Congress that they say hint at misconduct by the Bidens even without confirmation. They point to the ongoing federal criminal investigation of President Hunter’s son, suggesting it has been obstructed. And they point out that the president himself is also being investigated for keeping classified documents not yet indicted.
Differences between cases, however, are evident, complicating apples-to-apples comparisons. In the document investigation, for example, Mr. Biden’s advisers have so far returned the papers to authorities immediately after discovering them. Mr Pence did the same after a voluntary search found the former vice president had kept classified documents, and was recently cleared by the Justice Department because there was no evidence of deliberate violations of the law.
Mr Trump, on the other hand, refused to hand over all the documents he had taken from the White House, even after being subpoenaed by them. According to the indictment, he orchestrated a sprawling scheme to hide papers and feed lies to authorities looking for them. On two occasions, according to the indictment, Mr Trump showed classified documents to people without security clearance and indicated he knew he shouldn’t.
As for the Justice Department’s weapons search, there was ample evidence that Mr. Trump tried to do just that while in office. He openly and aggressively pushed his attorneys general to prosecute his perceived enemies and drop cases against his friends and allies, making no pretense of seeking equal and independent justice. His approach of friends and family to his power of pardon extended clemency to associates and those who had access to him through them.
During his four years in office, he broke so many rules that it is no wonder that the institutions have faced credibility problems. In fact, he has made it clear that he does not respect the limits that limited other presidents. Since leaving office, he has called for the “termination” of the Constitution so he can return to power without waiting for new elections and vowed to devote a second term to “retribution” against his enemies while pardoning supporters who stormed the capitol on January 6, 2021, to stop the transfer of power.
There is no known evidence, on the other hand, that Mr. Biden played any role in the investigations against Mr. Trump. Unlike the fickle Mr. Trump has insisted on not even publicly commenting on individual processes, saying he respects the autonomy of the Justice Department.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has been sensitive to the perception issue and has tried to isolate the inquiries by appointing Mr. Smith, a career prosecutor who is not registered with either political party, as a special counsel with a guarantee of independence in the absence of overt wrongdoing. for his part.
But that was never going to convince Mr. Trump or his most ardent supporters of the fairness of the process. In the background, the former president and front-runner for his party’s nomination to be the next president is being indicted by a prosecutor appointed by an appointee of the man he hopes to defeat. It’s a recipe for mistrust, especially when fueled by a defendant who has mastered the politics of grievance and victimhood.
Will this lead to lasting damage to democracy? Even some who support charging Mr. Trump fears he might. Still, some who have studied politically charged research advised patience. There will be fireworks. Many will doubt the credibility of the system. But in the end, they said, the system will survive as it has for more than two centuries.
“It’s messy and uncomfortable for the generation living through it, but the system is durable enough to win,” said Ken Gormley, president of Duquesne University and author of books on Watergate and the Clinton investigations. “As painful as the coming year will be as the criminal justice system moves toward a just verdict in the Mar-a-Lago papers case, whatever the outcome, we are fortunate that our predecessors have spent 234 years supporting them. the bulwark.”
