Revised and updated: July 24, 2022
The ball is now in the Department of Justice's court: Can and will Trump be charged with a crime? Merrick Garland should. The future of democracy could hang on it or might not, depending if the impact on the public mood and voters' reactions could spoil Trump's attempt to win a second term in 2024. We may get a sense of this in the November 2022 midterms if Trumpists win or lose their races in counties, states, and Congress. According to Axios reporting, secret plans were being developed and had begun to be implemented by Trump and his allies to consolidate control of the entire federal bureaucracy, sabotage democracy as we have known it for 250 years, and keep him or those like him in office for years to come. His choices already dominate the Supreme Court as the list of decisions on public policy this year demonstrates, from ending Roe v Wade to knee-capping the EPA's ability to fight climate change. The rest of the federal bench is still showing a firm streak of independence throwing out over sixty court cases for lack of evidence the 2020 election was stolen. Further execution of it these plans will now depend upon his saving a second term. Trump devised the scheme in 2020 known as "Schedule F" and began to implement it by executive order, but Biden ended it. That scheme would have Trump end federal civil servants' protection from political pressure in such vital agencies as the Justice Department, the military, and the IRS among agencies, and replace 50,000 holding key policy related positionswith those loyal to Trump himself rather than to the Constitution. and the rules of law. In practical terms, what Schedule F would mean for citizens who were not pledged to Trump and Trumpism is that they need not apply to a federal agency to fix a problem or change policies. In time, whether citizens like Trump or not, they need to demonstrate their loyalty, not to abide by the rules and laws, but to Trump, Trumpism, and Trummpists who interpret and enforce the rules.
It is such a power grab that becomes self-perpetuating. To have a voice, and get business done, you have to jump on their train. That is how dictatorships begin to consolidate power and remain in control, subverting and destroying the more impartial rule of law until the next revolution, violent or velvet, unseats them because it would take that to get regime change. as the election process is controlled by the dear leader, as well. It is far better to nip this anti-democratic movement of Trumpism in the bud now by using the ballot box while you can than to unseat an entrenched autocrat later. Don't think the MAGA mouthpieces and cheerleaders do not have that in mind. Steve Bannon, just convicted of contempt of Congress, ranted that if MAFA succeeds now it will be in power for a hundred years. Bannon says MAGA will govern for 100 years That is what is at stake and why it is important that Trump and their followers feel enough pain and repercussions to send the message to wannabe Trumpists that the price is too high to pay for such a power grab. That is why both the January 6 Committee's actions to shine a light on Trump and his failed coup are so important. It is also why the Department of Justice's actions to get accountability through criminal prosecution become so important. However, if it is not translated into votes on November 22 and November 24, democracy will not survive another four years of Trumpism. As even a powerful conservative judge noted in his ruling, Trump is a "clear and present danger" to democracy. Conservative judge: Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy
The problem those of us who care about the fairness of governance that the Constitution provides is faced with a sizeable group of voters, still, about 30 to 40% of the electorate, do not give a whit,. It is my theory that one of the reasons for this is that they are ignorant of history and how much similar public sentiment gave rise to the fascist and communist dictators of the last century. It did not end well. It resulted in their demise in losing world wars and cold wars. It also brought unanticipated suffering to their own citizens who had swallowed propaganda. and oratory by demagogic leaders using modern media. Another powerful force driving Trumposm is empowering their brand of politics to gain more power to enhance their own personal ambitions and economic self-interests. What counts in the day-to-day lives of most of those supporting Trumpism with no political ambitions they say are inflation and crime.. More important drivers, I believe, are the cultural issues of white Christian nationalism. fueled by fear their beliefs are under attack by modern and liberal social values and by rising black and brown demographics. That gas prices are decreasing and Biden is increasing funding for police, and with Trumpists proposing nothing to solve those problems, those issues may not be the same hot topics in 2024, Nonetheless, cultural wars will persist.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-termhttps://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-presidency-schedule-f-federal-employees
__________________________________________________________________________________
This following segment has been moved to a separate, stand-alone posting, revised and updated dated July 25
The most immediate question is if Trump and his allies are criminally prosecuted for what they did to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to give Trump a second term. The purpose such prosecution serves is not only to punish but to prevent Trump and others from trying it again. It also will serve as educating voters about how close they came to losing democracy, but also to be on alert it could still happen.
As the January 6 committee rested its case, at least until fall, the spotlight is now on the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Merrick Garland to decide whether to charge Trump with a crime via a grand jury. Not every shady practice is a crime on the books. Dereliction of duty, the accusatory phrase used most in the January 6 hearings, is viewed as a crime in the military, but not in federal laws. For any criminal charge, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent to commit a crime or directly commit ta chargeable crime on the books beyond a reasonable doubt. That Garland does not exempt a former president from prosecution was confirmed recently in remarks he made. No person, including Trump, is above the law. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-garland-reiterates-person-trump-law-jan/story?id=87140695 The reasons put forth by some not to prosecute Trump is the fear that this sets a dangerous precedence that would impact future administrations. However, Trump's case was unique in our history. No one had ever attempted a coup and to overturn an election. specific That is a specific case that threatened the very foundation of the riule of law and American democracy. to that kind of behavior . To let Trump off the hook would set an even more dangerous precedencece, giving green lights to him and other wannabes for attemmpting the same in the future, free of painful repercussions.
The Justice Department has a challenge in proving beyond a reasonable doubt Trump intentionally committed a crime. Intent and a heavy burden of proof are elements needed to charge and convict anyone of a crime that is on the statute books. Trump has a long history of thumbing his nose at rules and laws. For him, the rule of law and abiding by laws are barriers to be ignored, and gotten around. In his business life before becoming president, penalties, restitution, and lawyer fees were just the cost of doing business and they never deterred him from doing a similar dirty deed again. Two impeachments didn't stop him nor did the Stormy daniels saga or the findings of civil fraud in the Trump University scheme. None of this was a secret and sometimes his legal escapades made the headlines. . Declaring numerous bankruptcies was a business strategy to avoid paying obligations. Bullying and threats were his weapons. To avoid loss in civil suits and possible criminal charges, he learned to leave no fingerprints or evidence of potential culpability, shred documents that would be paper trails of shady practices, and forbad tape recordings like the one that ended Nixon's presidency and did not use email. Using lies to make his point was a good strategy, not a moral wrong. The most current example, after being told by his family, his attorney general, and rulings by 60 judges, that the election was not stolen, he continued the big lie to fuel the events of January 6.
Trump couched his threats in parsed conversations. Direct evidence that Trump gave the orders for others to commit a crime would give the DOJ's case wings, but the next best can be testimony by witnesses that he intended to do so, his state of mind. and the circumstances around the event. The witness testimony under oath revealed by the January 6 committee was a very significant contribution to the evidence of Trump's state of mind. His method of avoiding accountability for his actions was honed over the years. First came his ask and then hinting at a threat came somewhere else in the paragraph. Sometimes he just appealed for the loyalty to him he demanded. in return for continued support. Classic examples were "find me those missing votes ", "get me more dirt on Hunter Biden", and "simply declare the electoral college votes a fraud, I'll take care of the rest". The following threat phrases were not spoken but implied: "I'll primary you", "ruin your political future", "not give you your anti-tank missiles " and "do it even if you have to break a law or announce a faux investigation. " That was the message his targets heard; they got it. As his fixer/personal attorney Michael Cohen who was jailed for hiding Trump'sexpenses in silencing Stormy Daniels, often related, Trump gave no direct orders to his fixers and allies and lieutenants, but hinted at his wishes, expected them to do the dirty work, and take the fall in silence if they got caught. Direct evidence that Trump actually gave the orders for others to commit a crime would give the DOJ's case wings, but the next best evidence can be testimony by witnesses that he intended to do so, his state of mind. The witness testimony under oath revealed by the January 6 committee was likely the most significant contribution to the evidence of Trump's state of mind.
Listening to the attorneys and legal experts commenting on TV over the past weeks and post-July 21 hearing, there are at least some possible charges. The next challenge is for the DOJ to present the evidence and case to a grand jury.to indict or charge Trump with probably causing a criminal act. The next DOJ decision is whether to go to trial by jury. Merrick Garland has recently indicated that no person, even the president, is above the law, so the indication is that he could charge the president if he so chose. Most prosecutors usually proceed to a jury trial only if they believe they have a probable conviction, making them more cautious to act than the public would expect.
1, The clearest thought on an appropriate charge so far I heard was presented by William Cohen this past week.on cable TV. Cohen is a Republican who served as both a member of the United States House of Representatives and Senate and as Secretary of Defense under Democratic President Bill Clinton. He suggested the charge of an accessory to and after the commission of a crime. Even if Trump did not directly execute the crime himself it is a crime to be an accessory, aiding, and abetting the execution of a crime.
2. Conspiracy to commit sedition, is a charge already levied on the Proud Boys and Oath keepers. Treason itself cannot be charged unless we are at war. Seditious conspiracy is the peacetime version. Overturning an election that is part of a legitimate democratic process is likely a seditious act.
3. To interfere with an official government function, is a crime. The certification of the electoral count is an official government (and Constitutional) function.
4. Indict him as a co-conspirator, either unnamed or named. . Trump was the unnamed person number 1 in the Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen escapade. Unnamed would be a slap with a wet noodle leaving the question of personal accountability charge as applied to him debated forever.
There are other charges out there, but these are the ones I heard most frequently.
Even then, how many of these charges are voters willing to tolerate or believe in his guilt in numbers enough to stop him at the ballot box even if he wins or is found guilty at trial. That is the ultimate question.
