THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2023
...about Jack Smith and Trump: We hope that Jack Goldsmith is wrong. We're afraid he may be right.
Goldsmith is a Harvard Law School professor. He served as an assistant attorney general under George W. Bush.
That said, Goldsmith isn't a supporter of Donald J. Trump. In his guest essay in today's New York Times, he says this about the ongoing prosecutions of Trump in connection with the 2020 election:
"None of these considerations absolve Mr. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for this mammoth mess."
According to Goldsmith, responsibility for the current mess rests with Donald J. Trump. According to Goldsmith, Trump is responsible for this mess due to his "shameful acts"—due to his "reprehensible actions."
But oh, those "considerations"—the considerations Goldsmith lists in today's guest essay! Headline included, his essay starts like this:
The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences
It may be satisfying now to see the special counsel Jack Smith indict Donald Trump for his reprehensible and possibly criminal actions in connection with the 2020 presidential election. But the prosecution, which might be justified, reflects a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.
Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster.
But even if the prosecution succeeds in convicting Mr. Trump, before or after the election, the costs to the legal and political systems will be large.
Could the prosecution of Donald Trump actually fail? Readers, of course it could!
At a terribly polarized time, it would take only one juror, out of twelve, to deny conviction. And make no mistake:
Even a hung jury which voted 11-1 for conviction would instantly be described by Trump as having provided acquittal. Given the current state of our "information landscape," any such outcome will be seen, by millions of aggrieved Americans, as giving added weight to the claim that Trump is being pursued for partisan political purposes.
You'll have to read Goldsmith's full piece to see the reasons for his full set of concerns. But we agree with the drift of his opening passage:
The legal reasoning behind the case is far from simple and straightforward. That doesn't mean that the legal reasoning is "wrong." It means that the reasoning is sufficiently "novel" (and "tricky") to mean that it will be hard to explain to Trump's devoted supporters.
The legal reasoning will be easy to obscure—to demagogue. That problem will remain even if Trump is convicted.
In the case under review, Donald J. Trump hasn't been charged with shooting someone on 5th Avenue—with a simple, straightforward act. A lot of complexity is involved, and the demagoguery will be general.
We're afraid that Goldsmith could be right. We're afraid that he may not be wrong.
This is why you give Trump the old Micah X. Johnson* treatment, instead of trying him in court. No muss. No fuss. No worries.
ReplyDelete* Johnson's crime was exercising his 2nd Amendment Rights, not his First Amendment Rights, but the point still stands.
It's very telling Dems can't beat Trump politically.
ReplyDelete3M more votes in 16, 7M more votes in 2020.
DeleteAll it “tells” is that it is easier to exploit toxic traits in people than to inspire people to help those in need.
Delete1:59,
DeleteVoter suppression is one hell of a drug.
Goldsmith may not support Trump, but he sure helped pave the way for him. Somerby leads with his chin once again.
ReplyDeleteTrump isn’t going to win. He may not be the nominee.
ReplyDeleteLord. Asking Bob to seriously consider the issues raised by the Trump criminality crisis has become like asking Don Knotts to spend the night in the Haunted House.
ReplyDeleteYet, actually, Bob isn't half as scared as he is pretending to be.
What he is is a massive spoilsport. As Trump hiimself circles back to dog that won't hunt ("It's what I believe, and it's a very strong opinion!") we can see that Bob doesn't even want to be correct anymore. What he wants are the people he despises (liberals who know more about something than he does) to go down hard. If the country has to go down in the process, well, Bob has a strong opinion.
I have a feeling the "full set of concerns" goes downhill fast. I would also agree with many a legal mind in that a lot (not all) of this IS pretty straight forward and simple. With the Georgia phone call to come! It could all be dismissed by one juror. A TERRIBLE reason not to go on the record on this for History. Don't stand up for anything, you might lose! What an inspiration Bob must have to his students.
The Right will demagogue this! Any reason to believe the Right WON'T demagogue this if they LOSE? Bob demands the left dwell in the sewer of bad faith and fear of his dreams. Whatever else occurs, that won't happen.
"If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster."
ReplyDeleteBS
anon 5:00, we'll find out in due time who is the GOP nominee for POTUS, whether Trump or what other great statesman is chosen, and we'll also learn who wins the November election. How can you argue about what hasn't happened yet, when we'll find out when it happens. TDH has about zero effect on the outcome. Also, you have made your mind up; you wouldn't qualify to be on a jury if and when Trump's trials take place. Even Smith's indictment takes the law into new territory, If you can't see that, you are blinded by partisanship. There are uncertainties galore, and whether the path being taken, or whether the path should have been taken differently - such that you or I might live to regret it - is pretrty much unknown. I'm keeping my fingers crossed..
ReplyDeleteIf Trump had shot someone, with witnesses, on 5th Ave, would it be partisan to say he’s guilty?
DeleteForming an opinion based the facts at hand is not automatically partisan just because it goes against Trump. We have a lot of info about 1/6 from the hearings and many of us watched it unfold. This isn’t as complicated as you think.
DeleteNo. Note though that I said anon 5:00 was partisannot the Smith indictment (though arguments can be and are being made that it is, most of these arguments being hyper-partisan). My point was more that Smith's indictments were going into new territory. If you're going to prosecute an ex-President, it would be preferable if you weren't breaking new legal ground.
Deleteanon 6:50, if I had the authority, I'd put Trump in jail for good for 1/6, and more for his constant, fascistic propaganda approach toward the election. I would say that the Jan. 6 hearing presented one side of the case - e didn't hear a defense. A real trial - there's both sides. And I am not sure that Smith could have made the indictment based on simpler facts, like that Bush lawyer TDH cites says. It's ok to be partisan - but you should be able to look at both sides objectively, which you don't see too of here on with the commenters.
DeleteAt 5:00. AC, people have been, for instance, jailed for stealing classified documents. The Georgia case is going to rest on election tampering, albeit with
Deletenovel brazenness, but it’s not an unheard of crime.
We were told, accurately, that insurrection was a very tough charge to prove. Yet it has been proven, now many times over. Do you give Trump a pass based solely on his wealth? Otherwise I see a lot very provable here. It’s hard to tell if you are being partisan or simply soulless/ballless.
Again, you and Bob beg the question: what are the consequences, as you see them, of letting Trump capriciously break the law?
The legal analysis that Smith’s indictment of Trump for obstruction etc is novel or breaking new legal ground is a really bad analysis.
DeleteThe only thing “novel” or “ground breaking’’ is Trump’s behavior: we have never had a president try to commit a coup before. There’s nothing novel or ground breaking about the legal basis for the charges.
Goldsmith is merely engaging in the same kind of blame the victim narrative that Somerby routinely traffics in.
Considering an issue “objectively” does not preclude one from comprehending illegality or corruption.
ReplyDeleteIndeed one who pushes for willful blindness to illegality and corruption in the name of objectivity is the real partisan.
Applying this nonsense standard, we’d likely still be living with slave masters and Nazis.
A non prosecution will have even more terrible consequences.
ReplyDeleteIt's bad enough we can't have reparations for slavery, because it hurts white peoples feelings. Now, we're not supposed to charge Trump for crimes, because that also hurts white peoples feelings?
ReplyDeleteKeep telling yourself the lie the USA isn't a white supremacist nation. Someday you might even believe it.
We have been taught to walk on eggshells because of the thin skins of the worst of the worst.
DeleteThe U.S. is not a white supremacist nation and that is a fact.
DeleteIt’s also a fact that you’re hysterical and neurotic.
Clearly the US historically has been and continues to be dominated by the notion of White supremacy; to suggest otherwise is ignorant and ahistorical.
DeleteWhile Blacks built our nation, built our wealth, generally via slavery, to this day they are refused from participating in the benefits of their forced labor - the average White has a dollar in their pocket whereas the average Black has 15 cents. That is a repulsive display of inhumanity and flagrant enforcement of White supremacy.
Denying reality is unsurprising coming from one pretending to be a woman.
Cecelia,
DeleteWhere did you read that, "Megyn Kelly's Big Book of Facts"?
Interesting, anonymices. Has Pres. Biden challenged white supremacist elements in our society or has he categorized the U.S.A. as being an inveterately white supremacist society in agreement with 8:54am?
DeleteBiden’s old pals would like to know.
11:38 Biden has. It literally takes 5 sec on google to find out.
Delete