Below is my column on how the upcoming election could play out with three different criminal cases in New York, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. This morning we are reading new leaks from the Justice Department’s grand jury investigation. It is another disheartening example of intentional leaks in violation of federal law and DOJ policies. The federal judge in the case seems entirely unconcerned about the violations that are clearly meant to undermine former president Donald Trump and pressure witnesses.
Here is the column:
The 2024 presidential campaign technically began months ago with the first announced candidates. Yet April 4 will be “Super Tuesday” for America’s first carceral presidential campaign, with the arrest and arraignment of Donald Trump. With the exception of the socialist (and incarcerated) Eugene Debs in 1920, we have not faced the prospect of a president who could be elected with both a term of office and a term of imprisonment.
The New York indictment of Trump has been widely criticized as politically motivated and legally flawed. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg boasted during his 2021 campaign about being best suited to go after Trump, and he is making good on his boast with a highly dubious bootstrapped legal theory.
The New York indictment will face considerable challenges. Those challenges will likely take some time to resolve, and if this case follows the customary schedule of criminal matters, it still may be pending when Americans go to the polls to select the next president in 2024.
In addition, a Georgia grand jury reportedly has finished its work on other charges against Trump. Weeks ago, Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of that special grand jury, gave a series of bizarre giggling interviews about nailing Trump. It is a mystery, given Kohrs’ apparent confirmation of pending charges, why Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has held back on an indictment.
Although stronger than the Manhattan case, the Georgia case has its own problems but could make it to trial because those problems are largely fact questions generally left to jurors. But it too would likely be pending by Election Day 2024.
The most serious threat among the potential cases is being developed by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith. His investigation of Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot is unlikely to result in charges and, if it does, is unlikely to survive challenges on First Amendment grounds. His investigation of the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents controversy presents a far more established — and, frankly, easier — route for prosecution. From its earliest filings, the Justice Department maintained there is evidence of obstruction and false statements — claims that it could use to distinguish any prosecution from the unlawful possession of classified material by President Joe Biden or former Vice President Mike Pence.
Smith is under a tight schedule if he wants to charge Trump, though. Since the Justice Department (incorrectly in my view) maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted, Smith would have to charge and, ideally, try Trump before Election Day. Indeed, the Justice Department strives to avoid any major legal steps that might impact voting near to an election — a period that could stretch back to the late summer of 2024.
What this means is that Trump could face as many as three sets of criminal charges in three different jurisdictions as he campaigns for the presidency. He would likely seek accommodations from courts to delay any trial during the campaign.
Whether or not Trump can delay a trial, much of 2024 will be focused on carceral rather than political issues. Trump has long claimed that Democrats are weaponizing the criminal justice system against him and other Republicans. Bragg has given him the case positive for proving that allegation, especially since Bragg ran for office on his ability to find a criminal charge against Trump.
The question is what happens if any of these efforts succeed.
I previously raised the prospect of an actual indictment in converting the election into a debate for presidential self-pardons. Article II of the Constitution states that a president may “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon, and presidents have abused the pardon power to protect political allies and even family members.
Numerous legal analysts have argued those constitutional provisions “make no sense if the president could pardon himself.” Yet it seems highly doubtful that courts would agree. Despite the massive gravitational pull of Trump on the legal analysis of many pundits, there is nothing in the Constitution to exclude presidents alone from pardon eligibility. The Supreme Court stated in Schick v. Reed that “the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and … its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself.”
While a newly elected Trump could only pardon himself for the federal crimes, it is the federal case that likely represents the greatest threat to him. Moreover, the two state cases would add to Trump’s narrative of facing ‘political prosecutions’ from a ‘weaponized’ legal system on every level. Trump often campaigns on just such a primal level. He knows that a man chased by a dog can spark public outcry — but a man chased by a pack of dogs can spark public outrage.
It is not simply the election that could take a carceral turn, however.
What would happen if Trump were elected but convicted in either state case? Such a trial would likely occur after the election. Even if courts extended a trial until after the 2024 election, it would be difficult to delay it for four years.
The last time a president faced the threat of a criminal trial was in 1872, when Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage in Washington.
I have long maintained that a sitting president can be indicted and tried. Almost 25 years ago, I wrote an academic work, “‘From Pillar to Post’: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents,” that challenged immunity theories protecting presidents. I do not believe the indictment of a president or former president is a national tragedy. To the contrary, it is the ultimate affirmation that no one is above the law.
However, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t get weird if Trump loses in court but wins in the election.
If Trump were convicted in a state proceeding, it would not bar him from running — or serving — as president. A state judge could grant probation or an alternative sentence to avoid imprisonment. Moreover, appeals on the issue of incarceration could take years to address a state order conflicting with the performance of a federal function. Once that time was exhausted, a court could order any incarceration to be delayed until after the end of the presidential term, since Trump could not be elected a third time.
We may have to face one of these scenarios. The question is whether voters may not only accept this prospect but some might even invite it. Regardless of how it works out, this election is about to take a carceral turn.
Elections often raise the politics of crime — but in this election, it may be hard to separate the politics from the crime.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Two corporate persons named Trump have already been convicted. Will the biological Trump be convicted too?
ATS cannot be accused of being logical. The retired doctor down the street had a bookkeeper who stole from him. She is now in jail. He also had an assistant who stole drugs and is also in jail.
ATS is suggesting that the doctor is a thief. Isn’t that a sign of faulty logic in a person who claims to be logical?
Live Feed – N.Y.C. Courthouse on Tuesday 4 April, 2023
Watch live from outside a New York courthouse on Tuesday 4 April, where Donald Trump is expected to be arraigned after he was indicted by a grand jury following a probe into hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-arraignment-new-york-b2313904.html
Bragg promised in advance that he would try to find a way to indict Trump. His prior boasts are reminiscent of Stalin’s secret police enforcer Lavrentiy Beria’s quip, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Nancy Pelosi gave the game away, when in her dotage, she muttered that Trump had a right to prove his innocence as if he is presumed guilty.
1. The Broad Scope of “Intent to Defraud” in the New York Crime of Falsifying Business Records [1]
2. Details of #45 indictment as well as process details leaked to yahoo! news Chief investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff [2]
[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/
[2] https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-trump-to-be-charged-tuesday-with-34-felony-counts-but-spared-handcuffs-and-mug-shot-001241750.html
This is the headline from today’s Wall Street Journal. Can’t they see the irony? It’s as if we’ve become the Soviets:
In Russia, Secret Trials and Near-Certain Convictions Await Accused Spies
There’s nothing secret about this trial, and you have zero means of assessing the certainty of conviction. You don’t even know the charges.
Should Trump retain his right to a speedy trial rather than waive it? I think forcing Bragg to trial sooner rather than later is smart. Bragg wants to draw the process out, Trump should not oblige the Soros-backed DA.
Bragg isn’t “Soros-backed,” and Trump’s the one who has the history of delaying trials.
Bragg is definitely Soros-backed. To deny it is an outright lie.
Soros didn’t donate any money to Bragg’s campaign.
“Soros didn’t donate any money to Bragg’s campaign.”
It’s called funneling money through a PAC, dishonest one.
The Color of Change PAC *also* did not donate money to Bragg’s campaign.
ATS, that is a lie. Soros donated big bucks to a group that then donated big bucks to Bragg. An indirect donation is no different than a direct one as far as results are concerned.
You know it. We know it. That means you are lying.
“Bragg is definitely Soros-backed. To deny it is an outright lie.”
If ATS accepted the fact that Soros indirectly backed Bragg, maybe he wouldn’t be known to people as a liar.
“Trump’s the one who has the history of delaying trials.“
The left finds the man and then invents the crime.
I see Dr. Jill Biden wants the top 2 teams in college women’s basketball to come to the whitehouse. Isn’t it normal for the champs to be invited and only the champs. Everybody gets a trophy.
“First they Came for Donald Trump;
And I did not speak up, because I was not a Trump supporter…
…”
You have to be a special kind of stupid black person to support Bidens when Hunter Biden’s laptop shows him weighing crack and with a prostitute, yet 1000s of BLACK males in jail for LESS than this. Yeah, okay you dumb asses…keep hating on Trump but ignore Biden’s son did more than any black man rotting in jail right now for lesser crimes. Don’t believe it? SEE FOR YOURSELF AND WAKE the F up already. Support Trump. SPEAK OUT. IF they can come for a former President. IF they never charge HUNTER BIDEN…than the average American is being lied to about the Democrat’s alleged concern for “democracy.” Don’t be fooled: See here: https://youtu.be/Rj9V-XjCol8
Under Trump black unemployment reached record lows and we didn’t have this crime wave that is primarily impacting black neighborhoods and black victims. Where it counts, Trump was far better for African Americans than Biden and the leftist Soros DA’s.
“Get the hell away from black people.”
“Black people are a hate group.”
– Dilbert
Seriously, enough. Just, enough. Our modern left is peopled entirely by sociopathic children, and if they want the 14 year-olds – they can have ’em. The rest of us are *done* with the dems. 🙄🙄 They will really regret this in the future, and no, that is not a threat of violence. Idiot children do not understand the myriad other ways things can come back to bite them.
Our modern left is literally demonized as in demon controlled. Argument is insufficient; America needs exorcism.
History repeats. https://youtu.be/eezO5eM9ldA
OT:
“Tennessee House Republicans on Monday filed resolutions to expel three Democrats for “disorderly behavior” after the trio led protest chants for gun reform on the floor of the chamber last week in the wake of the deadly Covenant School shooting. The official expulsion resolutions state the trio “did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonor to the House of Representatives through their individual and collective actions.” … The last time the House expelled a sitting lawmaker was in 2016 when the chamber voted 70-2 to remove then-Rep. Jeremy Durham, R-Franklin, from the House for alleged sexual misconduct. At the time, it was the first expulsion since 1980 and only the second since the Civil War.”
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/03/tennessee-republicans-file-resolutions-to-expel-three-democrats-who-led-gun-reform-chants-on-house-f/70078002007/
If the TN Republicans move forward with this, it will be the first time in state history that the expulsion vote wasn’t bipartisan. Earlier today, the three Democrats were stripped of their committee assignments, and their membership IDs were turned off. The 3 represent ~210,000 Tennesseans, and their constituents want gun control. Tennesseans have gathered at the Tennessee Capitol to protest against this threatened expulsion.
Expulsion is a disproportionate response. The TN Republicans apparently care more about decorum than they do about kids’ lives lost to gun violence.
The assumption being that anyone that disagrees with your particular policy for disarming citizens doesn’t care “about kids’ lives lost to gun violence.” Spare me the sanctimony.
They’re trying to expel state House Reps. for nothing other than leading some gun control chants in the House. Do you think that’s just?
I have no opinion on what apparently is a dispute local to Tennessee that I had never heard about and have no interest in. That was not what I was responding to. I was responding to your cliched advocacy for disarming law-abiding citizens under the pretext of doing it for the children.
I was not advocating for disarming law-abiding citizens. That you assumed “The TN Republicans apparently care more about decorum than they do about kids’ lives lost to gun violence” = “advocacy for disarming law-abiding citizens” is on you.
You care more about power than you do in saving the lives of minority children in Chicago.
You are disingenuous.
Yes, you were advocating exactly that. There is no other reasonable interpretation of your words.
You can fool yourself into believing that, but that doesn’t make it true.
ATS, your words and quotes tell a different story. You are fooling yourself.Milhouse is right.
They and everyone who participated should be treated exactly like the J6 political prisoners. They should be hauled off in chains, kept in solitary confinement and abusive conditions for months without trial, and then charged with the newly invented offense of “disrupting an official proceeding” or whatever it is, that until 2021 was thought to apply only to destroying evidence.
Rep. Gloria Johnson: “We’ve had members pee in each other’s chairs. We’ve had members illegally prescribe drugs to their cousin-mistress, and nothing happened. But talk on the floor without permission, and you’ll get expelled.”
During his first term in the White House, in the face of constant attacks from the left and his own party, Trump achieved gasoline under $2 a gallon, record low unemployment, inflation under 2%, rising real wages, a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration, new trade agreements with Mexico and Canada, higher tariffs on products from Communist China, lower American tax rates, reduced regulation of American manufacturing and energy production, withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, American energy independence, the rebuilding of the American military, increased military spending by NATO, creation of the United States Space Force, no new wars, reduced missile testing by North Korea, cancellation of the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the brokering of historic trade agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the restoration of quality medical care for veterans at the VA, elimination of the Obamacare mandate to buy health insurance, the right of terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs and treatment, the appointment of more than 230 federal judges who believe in following the Constitution, the appointment of three Supreme Court justices who believe in following the Constitution, and a welcoming environment in the Republican Party for good and decent Americans of all races and classes. Seventeen months after Trump left office, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade with a 6-3 vote. Go Trump.
MAGA HATS On! Go Trump!
Saluda – good summary of how much better things were under Trump than Biden, and Trump did it all while refusing to take a salary. Yet the mentally ill Dems cannot do anything but persecute him for all the good he has done for others. He could have continued to make millions in the private sector and not had to deal with political arrows being shot at him every day, but he gave that up to make life better for his countrymen. There are truly few people like him.
No matter how many times you repeat these fantasy stories about Trump’s alleged “accomplishments”, they are still BS. I’ve pointed this out several times before. Do they pay you to do this?
I’ll be boycotting cable tomorrow. Seeing an “O.J.” aerial shot of the ex-Prez’s motorcade gave me the creeps.
Who wants to be mind-shaped by media this way? The case isn’t that important, and the jurors will be sure to remind Bragg of what a real case consists of.
“No Democrat was criminally prosecuted for violations”
Right. Pay attention to the difference between *campaigns* and *individual people*. Those *people* weren’t prosecuted because those *people* weren’t responsible for acts by the *campaigns*. In contrast, Trump personally reimbursed Cohen (for paying Daniels hush money, which is one of the crimes — an illegal campaign contribution — that he served time for), and Trump drew the checks on his personal account, along with Trump Org. checks signed by Jr. and Trump’s CFO Weisselberg. The Trump Campaign was not involved.
“far grosser than anything Trump is likely to be charged with.”
Which is grosser is again a matter of opinion.
“I should have mentioned 1992, when Clinton spent an enormous amount of money silencing the so-called Bimbos. Under the Bragg standard, those expenses were also unreported campaign contributions, for which no one even fined.”
You’ll have to be more detailed, as I don’t know what 1992 payoffs you’re talking about. I know about his 1998 payment to Paula Jones, but that was to settle a civil lawsuit, and it was public. It wasn’t a campaign contribution at all, much less an unreported one.
(for paying Daniels hush money, which is one of the crimes — an illegal campaign contribution — that he served time for)
It is not a crime…according to the FEC, and the DoJ. Trump was not charged with the crime. If thats the crime the legal payment furthered, it’s a dead case. Trump was not charged let alone tried and convicted.
“It is not a crime”
Wrong again: the FEC’s “Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended finding reason to believe that Cohen and the Trump Organization made, and Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Committee”) accepted and failed to report, illegal contributions.”
The OGC said:
Cohen “pleaded guilty to an eight-count criminal information, in which Cohen admitted, among other things, to making an excessive contribution in violation of the [1971 Federal Election Campaign] Act by making the Clifford payment. … [T]he violations of the Act and Commission regulations by Cohen, Trump, the Trump Committee, the Trump Organization, and Essential Consultants were knowing and willful.”
Illegal contributions. Cohen pleaded guilty to that and other crimes. But the Republicans on the FEC blocked fining or referring Trump because Cohen had already served time.
“If thats the crime …”
IDGAF what your conjecture is about the indictment. Jeez. Just wait til tomorrow and you’ll know instead of guessing. And it will be resolved in court, with due process for Trump, not by anyone’s claims here.
IDGAF what your conjecture is about the indictment. Jeez. Just wait til tomorrow
You’re the one that keeps posting about it. Providing links and such. Take your own advice. You’re just mad because I keep pointing out your BS
I haven’t made any claims about the indictment other than that it’s still sealed. You know that, but lie anyway, just like you lied about the FEC’s findings.
No former president has ever been indicted—and for good reason. Such prosecutions would be viewed as persecutions and render all former presidents veritable targets of every publicity-hungry and politically hostile local, state, or federal prosecutor. They would reduce the presidency to Third World norms. Gratuitously prosecuting former presidents would become a political tool to harm the opposing political party or to tarnish the legacy of a former president.
Nixon would have been indicted if Ford hadn’t pardoned him. And it’s in banana republics that presidents can commit crimes without legal consequences.
Nixon had civility and a love for America. You don’t see that from Democrats.
As history has shown, Nixon SHOULD have been indicted because after he got over the shock that he would be impeached if he didn’t resign, he started proclaiming his innocence.
It is unlikely Nixon would have been indicted.
I have no idea about you – But I was an adult when Nixon resigned.
My knowledge of this is not from books, but from being present as it all happened.
Regardless Ford did the right thing.
Those on the Left do not have the character to do so.
No former president ever used the help from a hostile foreign power to cheat his way into office. No former president ever lied, constantly, about everything, including downplaying the seriousness of a deadly pandemic because he thought it made him look bad. No former president ever incited an insurrection because the can’t handle the fact that he lost a free and fair election. No former president tried to leverage aid appropriated by Congress to an ally in exchange for ginning up lies about his opponent. No former president was impeached twice, refused to attend his successor’s inauguration, or refused to shut up, go away, and allow his successor to lead the country consistent with the will of the American people..
And, all of the “doom and gloom” about the effect of prosecuting Trump is BS, too. France, Italy and Canada all prosecuted former or current presidents, and all of these countries are still going and are still democratic. Trump miscalculated that he could get away with doing anthing he wanted because he found a way to get into the Oval Office.
Explain the criminal charge to us all. Succinctly.
Read the indictment–posted supra.
she learns a new word
I haven’t made any claims about the indictment
I never said you did. I asked why you insist on linking to opinions that are analyzing what might happen…just like you say Turley should not do. You are offering your opinion, by proxy offering your opinion.
You are too transparent.
It didn’t analyze what you claim.
You provided the links that agreed with you, Speculating, Doing just what you object to.
This is too rich to be true. At the same time we are being told that a hush money payment to a porn star was a serious campaign violation, there is a trial going on in Washington DC (virually unpublicized) of illegal campaign contributions of $26m being funneled through a rapper from a fugitive Maylasian embezzler to the Barack Obama Presidential campaign in 2012. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html Nothing serious, just more campaign violations by Democrats. Campaign laws exist only as a snare for Republicans.
Edward all, say it ain’t so.
There’s lots and lots of reporting on this trial. Just do an internet search on Pras Michel trial to see some of it.
Once again the Democrats have set a standard they will never be able to escape as now any charges against politicians MUST BE pursued during the election and can never be delayed. I have often said that not charging or investigating politicians running for office is wrong as the statue of limitations clock doesn’t stop!
1. Since it is a mystery how GOP want win presidency in ’24, in any case Donald Trump will be called out as the culprit, justification to follow in due course.
2. As a criminal defendants who will lose a lot of his rights, Trumps life will change (maybe much more than he expects).
3. Trump will offer “remarks” tomorrow evening at Mar-a-Lago: Violating a gag order means committing the crime of contempt of a court order.
Charlotte,does that mean Trump can’t campaign?
He can campaign BUT (more likely) not in the way he is used to: As a criminal defendant he will lose in part his free speech rights. The court will decide if presidential candidate’s “remarks” ar in line with gag order or is a violation. Or in short: Be silent or face prision!
Over/under on how many FBI agents have been specifically assigned to trying to incite a pro-Trump “white nationalist” NYC riot?
Anon. “how many FBI agents have been specifically assigned to trying to incite a pro-Trump “white nationalist” NYC riot?
+++
Probably 90% will be feds, or thugs associated with them, all wearing MAGA hats. The first scam, Jan 6, is falling apart so they will try again.
I wonder how much crime statistics would decline if the DOJ were abolished? Maybe a lot. I used to think they were great, and maybe back then they were, but they seem to have absorbed the soul of the Mafia except for the good food and great music part. The DOJ now is pure Waffle House and Rap ‘music’.
Zero. And how many people in NYC are interested in pro-Trump rioting? We know from Jan 6th that the total number for the entire US is likely less than 2000 persons, maybe 1000.
I understand professor Turley’s adopting the role of innocent bystander, but it doesn’t fly. This isn’t an amusing, intriguing legal Rubik’s cube. This is prosecuting, and undoubtedly jailing, because why would democrats miss this opportunity to put the orange man in an orange suit? a political opponent simply because he IS a political opponent. And he’s currently way ahead in the polls. Professor Turley was proud of his tears of joy at the “Biden” inauguration. No tears for the end of America as we know it, or rather, knew it? Just a chortle and amen? Time to pick a side. Not left or right. Right or wrong.