A date has been set for Trump's first federal trial!

MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2023

So has he committed a crime? A date has been set for Trump's first federal trial. Headline included, the New York Times reports the basic facts:

Judge Sets Trial Date in March for Trump’s Federal Election Case

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election set a trial date on Monday for early March, laying out a schedule that was close to the government’s initial request of January and that rebuffed Mr. Trump’s extraordinary proposal to push off the proceeding until nearly a year and a half after the 2024 election.

The decision by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, issued at a contentious hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, to start the trial on March 4 potentially brought it into conflict with two other trials that Mr. Trump is facing that month.

If Judge Chutkan's decision holds, this first federal trial will start on March 4, 2026. This raises a very important question:

With respect to the charges involved in this first prosecution, has Donald J. Trump committed any actual federal crimes?

Has Donald J. Trump committed a crime? Our overview goes like this:

Based on a wealth of public reporting, it seems obvious that Trump has almost surely committed recognizable crimes with respect to his handling of the classified material found at his Florida country club, Mar-a-Lago. But that's the stuff of his other federal indictment. That wouldn't be part of this trial.

As Alan Feuer notes in the Times, this first federal prosecution of Trump would involve "charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election." Here's the thumbnail account of the charges as provided by the leading authority:

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury indicted Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on four charges for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack: conspiracy to defraud the United States under Title 18 of the United States Code, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and conspiracy against rights under the Enforcement Act of 1870. The indictment mentioned six unnamed co-conspirators. It is Trump's third indictment and the first indictment against a U.S. president concerning their actions while in office. Trump appeared at an arraignment on August 3, where he pleaded not guilty. The charge with the longest sentence carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.

As of August 2023. the trial is scheduled for March 4, 2024.

Hmmm. If Trump had shot someone on Fifth Avenue, it would be easy enough to understand what he's been charged with doing. 

By way of contrast, does the average person know what it means to "defraud the United States," or to engage in a "conspiracy against rights?" Offhand, we ourselves have little idea what those fuzzy phrases might mean.

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Trump was surely engaged in lunatic conduct based upon a lunatic refusal to accept and acknowledge the fact that he had lost the election. Beyond that, he was certainly trying to game the system in a lunatic or ludicrous way through the demands he made on Mike Pence leading up to the formalities of January 6.

That said, did this president's lunatic conduct involve any criminal acts? We'll wait to hear the arguments on that—but we can already tell you this:

At this site, we're much more concerned with the political / epistemic / journalistic aspects of this astonishing state of affairs than we are with the criminal charges. 

We're much more concerned with a troubling political fact—with the fact that our own blue tribe can't convince half the country of the rather obvious lunacy of Trump's behaviors and claims.

We're concerned with the political haplessness of our own failing blue tribe. That strikes us as a more pressing question than the question of whether Trump can be said to have committed some sort of federal crime in the course of his lunatic conduct.

In the matter of the classified documents, it seems that Trump clearly has committed recognizable crimes.  In this matter, has he committed a "conspiracy against rights?" We aren't even sure that we know what such lingo means.

We do know this:

Trump has engaged in lunatic conduct at many stops along the way. Our tribe has been largely unable to convince a wide array of neighbors and friends of this rather obvious fact.

Oue tribe is eager to see Trump frog-marched to jail. On cable, there's virtually no other topic.

We badly want to lock him up! Given our own political haplessness, is it possible that we should spend a bit of time trying to heal ourselves?

23 comments:

  1. Juries are frequently asked to render verdicts on complicated matters that may not be in their areas of expertise, such as contract disputes, financial crimes, etc. The law is explained to the jury.

    In fact, has Somerby read the indictment? It details the charges against him. It isn’t actually difficult to imagine why what Trump did was a crime.

    Somerby’s apparent notion, that only crimes such as murder are “easy” for juries to understand, is laughable. There may be a lot of morons out there, but somehow, juries are selected and verdicts rendered on all kinds of cases.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob, we understand YOUR politics, They are kinda sad. Until you address the social and political ramifications of your goal ( letting Trump slide on his crimes) there is really no point in hearing from you.
    Your implication that the MAGA crowd is waiting around to be “convinced” is silly, and many Americans can understand that a plot to overturn a lost election is a form of defrauding the public.
    See you in Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You understand Bob's politics? I sure don't.

      Delete
    2. Your confusion is the intent of Bob.

      Start from there, furthermore consider context, and you may get it eventually. Or not. As Dr Bandy Lee notes, those captured by the Right are incapable of being persuaded by reason on issues related to politics.

      Delete
  3. “Oue tribe is eager to see Trump frog-marched to jail.”

    Somerby has never bothered to examine the indictment on its merits. His claim that the charges are too esoteric for juries to understand (especially those idiot Trump jurors, amirite Bob?) is ridiculous and his notion that Trump is insane is futile. Trump is not pleading insanity, thus he is left (if he in fact testifies) stating that he “sincerely believed” he won the election. If he isn’t claiming insanity, he must be presenting himself as a rational person. And a rational person is supposed to have a good reason to believe a certain thing is true, particularly as it pertains to factual matters like an election result. What can Trump as a rational person possibly give as a reason for his belief?

    “Our tribe” (does that include the now banished from TDH Bandy Lee?) and many others want to see justice done, rather than allow fake pity to free trump and the Republicans to continue to destroy democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Our tribe is eager to see Trump frog-marched to jail. "

    Why shouldn't Trump go to jail if he is convicted of major crimes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tribe is much less eager for this than Bob is to seeing Trump skate from his mind boggling crimes. Not that Bob cares about Trump, he just wants to punish MSNBC.

      Delete
  5. Another note: two of the Republican presidential candidates (my former governor Hutchinson and Christie) are both campaigning on the idea that the justice department isn’t corrupt and that Trump should not be the Republican nominee, being indicted as he is on multiple counts. And Pence at least has rather strongly pushed back when accused of “treason” by angry MAGA voters who think he had a “duty” not to certify the election. Raffensperger and other GOP state officials pushed back in real time against Trump and his henchmen. There are other Republican voices (judge luttig comes to mind) who strongly support the prosecution of Trump. These are the minority, and Hutchinson and Christie have no chance at the nomination, but they are important voices that indicate that this isn’t strictly a “tribal” matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There are other Republican voices (judge luttig comes to mind) who strongly support the prosecution of Trump."

      They are all pro war and pro free trade though.

      Delete
    2. That's another way of saying they support Ukraine and are opposed to Trump's 10% tariff proposal.

      Delete
    3. Yes. It's another way of saying they aren't populists.

      Delete
    4. Populism does not exclude the notion that a nation has a right to defend itself when attacked, such as Ukraine, nor does it include unhelpful proposals like Trump’s stupid tariffs.

      Having said that, no Republican is a populist, so yeah.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your lecture on how correct I am.

      Delete
    6. The comment is not opaque, and you are misinterpreting it.

      You are correct in that they are not populists; you are incorrect in defining populism as including opposition to the support of Ukraine and support for Trump’s tariff. (Trump’s misunderstanding of how tariffs work, and their function is a startling indication of ignorant he is.)

      Delete
    7. Thank you for your informative and authoritative response. Your intelligence is truly unique in this world.

      Delete
  6. This bipartisan view should be considered:

    citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/

    It certainly adds a dimension to the need to prosecute Trump for the January 6 Indictment charges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m down, I hoped it is pursued.

      Delete
  7. There have been nudist republicans for at least eleven years.

    https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/nudist-republican-in-florida-breaks-barriers-for-conservative-naked-people-everywhere-6527294

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Mr. Somerby! It's Bonnie from Connecticut. I see that you were talking about me in your last post. I've got a lot of ideas that I didn't have time for on cspan, and since you seem to have more empathy for me than that blue tribe you affiliate with, let's talk. First of all, let's establish this: you seem to get a lot of your info from mainstream media that was discredited a long time ago. This is your main issue. You've been brainwashed into thinking stuff, like that the COVID vaccine works. And ivermectin doesn't. Bill Gates was involved in that propaganda. There are states in which you can get an abortion after childbirth. You didn't know that. There is a cabal of pedophiles in the democratic party. Third grade teachers are grooming school kids to become homosexuals. Climate change is a hoax and some say the Chinese are involved. The armed forces are getting weaker on account of their woke agenda, why Tucker compared them unfavorably to the Russians! They don't even treat their dead with respect: some family had to pay to ship their daughter who was killed in Afghanistan home. I could go on and on but I am afraid that you and your blue tribe are hapless, as you say. But keep preaching to them and maybe they'll tune into Fox. I see you're quoting Ann Counter now. A step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not an uncommon skill to selectively read facts and come up with wildly absurd theories about the world. It's quite fun to do so sometimes.

      The reason that conspiracy theory is not generally useful to understand politics is it fails to make predictions about politics. It does not create a body of knowledge that you could call a paradigm or context. Rather it's a series of highly emotionally charged factoids that break down further discussion before it can happen in the first place.

      Delete
    2. To put it another way, when Ann Coulter decides where to invest savings, she is not browsing websites about abortion conspiracy theories. Those stories are simply to keep you distracted while they take over the supreme Court

      Delete
  10. 2026? Try 2024. Has Bob suffered TBI in the War on Gore?

    ReplyDelete