Abuse of power in Trump case endangers us all
A Letter From Iowan John Kirsch
Letters From Iowans is a part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. We encourage you, our subscribers, to share your perspective in this column. To make your voice heard, use this form to send us your essay:
Living in Mexico City has advantages.
One is that the basics of life are probably less expensive here than they would be in Des Moines or, maybe, anywhere else in los Estados Unidos.
Another is the distance this location gives me from events in the country where I was born and lived the first 50-some years of my life.
As a result, I think I see things in the United States more clearly than I did when I lived there.
That thought came to mind as I watched the spectacle of Donald Trump's “hush money” trial reach its foregone conclusion May 30.
If I'd been assigned to write a story about the event for one of the newspapers I worked for in Iowa and Texas, I would have crafted the sort of neutral, balanced account I learned to produce in my first job at the paper in Fort Dodge, where I was born. But thankfully I am not in that moribund business anymore, so I don't have to pretend to believe there are two sides to what happened in Justice Juan Merchan’s courtroom.
There is only one side, the one that condemns this legal proceeding as the blatant election interference it is. Because I don't believe it is mere coincidence that Trump has been convicted as a felon in the middle of the election.
I'm not the only one who detects a foul smell arising from the courtroom in lower Manhattan. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley called the trial an “abuse” of the justice system. He noted the unseemly “thrill kill” celebrations after the verdict was issued.
Matt Taibbi, who proved his anti-Trump bona fides with his book “Insane Clown President,” called the case “a snow job”:
The New York indictment was a bespoke prosecution designed specifically for Trump, a Falsifying Records in the First Degree charge that required the “intent to commit another crime.” According to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, the other offense was New York Election Law Section 17-152, “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election,” defined as “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
Even Maddow’s MSNBC called this legal theory of District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “eyebrow-raising” and “novel,” which should tell you a lot. The notion that paying hush money to a porn star (which you are legally allowed to do, irrespective of whether your spouse should let you get away with it) constitutes “conspiring” to “prevent the election of any person” is the Mother of All Stretches.
He heaped more contempt on Democrats in a subsequent article headlined “A Sham Case, and Everyone Knows It; even Donald Trump's detractors know they shouldn't be celebrating this conviction, and some are admitting it.” He quoted Maureen Dowd — Maureen Dowd — as conceding that “the case was a stretch and not the strongest one against Trump.”
That's putting it nicely. A not-nice way of describing the case would be to say it looked like a Stalinist show trial where the guilty verdict was preordained.
But wait, there's more.
“Whatever you think of Donald Trump — and I for one think very little of him — his conviction as a felon for what would ordinarily be a minor misdemeanor by a biased jury is a grim day for democracy in America,” wrote author Michael Lind in an UnHerd column. “Yesterday’s decision, the culmination of a vindictive prosecution, was less dramatic than the ransacking of the US Capitol by a pro-Trump mob after the 2020 election — but the long-term ramifications are likely to be far more serious.”
The subhead on James Freeman’s column in the Wall Street Journal said “Democrats have made the election a referendum on their abuse of the justice system.”
People are entitled to their opinions of Trump or any other politician. But when a political party subverts the justice system to destroy a rival, or anyone else, we’re all at risk.
John Kirsch
Mexico City
The final sentence reads..."But when a political party subverts the justice system to destroy a rival, or anyone else, we’re all at risk."
Replace "a political party" with "Donald Trump, as both a sitting and former President"
But when Donald Trump, as both a sitting and former President, subverts the justice system to destroy a rival, or anyone else, we're all at risk
Which holds up to greater scrutiny as true?
I offer two perspectives to John’s essay. 1. The decision to charge Trump was complex; its history included the resignation of former prosecutors who disagreed with the initial Bragg decision not to prosecute https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/01/politics/trump-bragg-inside-indictment. 2. The judicial process (the judge, grand jury, and trial jury), were praised by many legal experts, including former Trump attorneys. As opposed to the Florida situation with Judge Cannon’s questionable rulings, Judge Merchan was beyond reproach.
Bragg’s decision to prosecute was not accompanied by quality and transparent reasoning to justify going forward (I say that disagreeing with conclusion of John’s essay). Both Bragg and Georgia’s Willis efforts may have solid legal foundations, but the handling/ messaging of the cases were poorly done.
As a former county prosecutor, there is tremendous discretion, sometime missed by media or the public. I don’t know how much pushback there was whenCapone was charged and sentenced to jail for tax violations.