January 20th. January 6th. March 30th. June 8th. 2.5 billion. 39.6%. These are some figures which Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States should hopefully remember. These show the date he was sworn in, the day he tried to take over the government by force, when he was charged with both state and federal charges, his latest estimated net worth by Forbes, and his latest popularity [1].
These are some numbers that define the former U.S. President, the only President to have undergone two impeachment attempts, and the first to be charged with federal crimes. Some see it as a victory of equality and justice, while others see it as a reckless mockery to undermine the sanctity of American republicanism and its courts. Abroad, people see a weakened and fractured nation. Indeed these characteristics existed far before Trump was born, but it was quickly exaggerated once he came in due to several factors, not limited to modern communication technology and an increase in pessimism.
Unfortunately, it seems that the former WWE fighter [2] still believes that he is still the rightful President. Former presidents still receive briefings, although not as extensive as the ones they would get as president, however, Biden barred Trump from having access due to Trump’s uncontrolled self. In March of 2023, the district attorney (the elected chief law enforcement officer that represents a state in a county) for New York County, Democrat Alvin Bragg, had won in successfully placing 34 felony indictment charges (accusing a person of committing certain crimes) of falsifying business records with a grand jury (empowered by law to determine whether that criminal charges brought against the person is sufficient for a trail). Two months later, it was the federal government’s special counsel who won in a similar process with 37 federal felony charges, related to unreturned confidential secrets.
Burning Down the House
The two indictments of Trump are, in my opinion, antipodal to an extent. It is hard to say the exact effects of each case without more details, which cannot be fully known due to the top-secret confidentiality of the second case. The first deals with adulterous and financial matters, while the second deals with the far more serious case of national defence, but one whose cause stems from the childishness of Trump.
The first case, New York v. Trump involved the payment of hush money to the pornstar, Stormy Daniels, before the 2016 elections along with other such alleged affairs with Karen McDougal and under the table payments to a Trump Tower doorman. Earlier, the lawyer, Michael Cohen, involved in this case, had already pleaded guilty and implicated Trump in the Stormy Daniels case. This led to further investigations of the Trump Organisation by the Manhattan DA office, eventually leading to the charge of running a tax scheme by the Trump Organisation. Overall, 34 felony criminal charges relating to falsifying business records (since hush money payments are technically not illegal by the word of the law) which could have undermined the integrity of the 2016 elections.
Those familiar with the history of organised crime in the United States may recognise the strategy of utilising financial crimes to dismantle criminal organisations. Led by the Democrat-DA Alvin Braggs, he would be subsequently insulted and mocked by conservatives. Trump’s social media platform “Truth Social” is possibly the best example of the modern echo chamber of extremism. Media coverage and polls of the general public on this however were split evenly. This could be due to the not-so-surprising nature, despite some of the actions involved would not be well seen by conservatives if done by someone else. On the other hand, one cannot but wonder about the motives of Bragg, a registered Democrat, for whom this has already become a historical case of precedent. [3] [4] [5]
The other case in a Florida federal court deals with national security, deception, refusal to cooperate, obstruction of justice and the classic politician’s lie that targets Trump and his aide, Walt Nauta. Presidents are indeed allowed to keep certain items and documents after their presidency (such as personal letters and other artefacts), but certain documents are expected to be returned to NARA (National Archives and Records Administration). During the last days of the Trump administration, and the days after, NARA had continuously requested his office to return certain documents due to their nature.
However, despite this, Trump and his team have refused or misled the federal agency. One of the defences Trump used is that “they want to keep his golf shirts, clothing, shoes and everything” and were too busy to sort them out. Instead, these boxes were lying at the Bedminster golf club, offices, ballroom stages, and bathrooms of his Mar-a-Lago resort. Details of an attack plan, presumed to be directly from the top of the Department of Defence, were not only shown to civilians with no security clearance but also recorded. Mar-a-Lago is also a resort with tens of thousands of visitors of all nationalities, and 150 events took place during that period. Perhaps one could chalk this up to him, or his staff, being unaware of classifications. However, that is not the case. Both he and his staff were briefed on the different classifications. It is a miracle that he still refused to cooperate even though 7 intelligence agencies kept requesting the return of those documents. Perhaps this might calm down the conspiracies on the powers of U.S. federal intelligence agencies, after all this was happening in Florida.
It took the Department of Justice, which had been contacted by NARA, to finally allow investigators to seize 13,000 documents. This makes Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, the first federal prosecutor to secure an indictment (37 federal felony indictments to be precise) against a President These include obstruction of justice, the Espionage Act, mishandling, and others. If he gets lucky, perhaps he will get an indictment on the criminal probe into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn election results. Unlike Braggs however, he is unaffiliated to either party and has a history of taking down organised and war criminals in both the U.S. and the International Criminal Court. While the judge appointed to this was appointed by Trump, she was chosen randomly in the circuit court. Higher courts overruled some of Judge Cannon’s policies to stall investigators on constitutional grounds as well, ensuring that justice will not be stopped by petty politics. However, it does look like the same Judge will be judging for the trial, 6 sets to happen many months away. Her previous sentences do show her conservative side affecting judgement though. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
A Summer’s Square Dance
Trump has pleaded innocence in both cases. At the time of writing, two of his lawyers have also left his legal counsel. As per the constitution, he will rightfully remain innocent until proven otherwise. He has simultaneously insulted the very constitution he once swore to uphold, and somehow managed to unify the Republican party against these indictment charges. The Republicans in the House of Representatives have expressed open support of Trump, while those in the Senate have been more muted. Even those critical of Trump, have expressed concern about the timing of these incidents. The Democrats have supported the indictments, however, President Biden remains muted.
One must wonder what goes in the mind of both sides, after all, Biden and former vice-president Mike Pence have both been raided, or requested, for the return of documents after their terms. However, unlike Trump, both of them gave back the documents as soon as requested. Trump had also rightfully mentioned Hillary Clinton's emails and vowed to take stricter actions on those who commit such crimes. And yet here we are, with the tables turned, and the waltz continuing. The 2024 election now has a fiery topic for politicians to rabble for now.
If the former TV star does get convicted of even any of the felonies, he will still be able to run for office as there are no legal restrictions for felons to run for office. Ironically, in some states, they are not allowed to vote either. A more concerning matter is if he does run and win, what happens to the trial and any judgement after that? By tradition, the president does not undergo prosecutions and also can pardon anyone convicted. Will Trump make the unthinkable decision of pardoning himself? Or will he honour the sanctity of the Constitution? At least all previous presidents caught up in such scandals had the dignity to resign or were lucky for those charges to be acquitted. [11] [12] [13]
Masquerade of the Guilty
Choosing between a corrupt democracy or a virtuous dictatorship was one of the dilemmas faced by human society. Fundamentally, people do not prefer independent thought and the accompanying responsibility, but rather orders, subordination, and the accompanying exemption from responsibility. In a monarchy, this would solely fall onto the monarch, who could subsequently be overthrown and replaced. But that is not the case in a democracy. In a popular democracy, the masses who elect unfit rulers are to blame for bad government. Rather than reflecting upon their own mistakes, the people would rather enjoy speaking ill of leaders they elected, being even more irresponsible than they are. Perhaps this is why events in the United States went about the way they did, as a large section of society was tired of the ramblings of lawmakers, and desired for something new, someone powerful enough to lead the nation with a single fist, while the other holds a large oversized cup of cola. The pandemic was simply the catalyst which invigorated the ones that were already on the extreme, on both sides. The BLM protests and riots added to this. The extremists simply fueled Trump’s power fantasy, and this was its result.
In the end, we live for the spectacle of the courtroom, seeking to judge everyone. The theatrics between the Democrats and the Republicans, both of whom have had their moments in ruining themselves whether it be from corruption, scandals or conspiracies. The indictment of Donald Trump shows that not even a former President is not above the judgement of the common man. His trial will be done in front of a jury with his peers, like any other common man. On the other hand, it also either shows the flexibility or loopholes of the United States to allow even those convicted can have a second chance. It is very unlikely this will destroy the United States in any capacity, for it has seen much darker days in the past. However, it should serve as a warning for the citizens of other democracies and republics about what can happen if the spirit of democracy fails. However, it is unlikely that it will.
Article by:
Amogh S Amblihalli,
Co-Editor, For the Record,
PES MUN Society, RR Campus