The
Dispatch
Thursday,
June 15, 2023
Donald
Trump was arraigned in federal court Tuesday. The 37 counts he is charged with
were detailed in a devastating 49-page indictment released late last week. The
former president is accused of keeping highly classified documents after his
presidency ended and thwarting the efforts of federal investigators to have
them safely returned. The evidence is compelling and overwhelming. While Trump
deserves a proper defense, no serious person who has read the indictment and
lived through the last eight years believes he is innocent.
Tuesday’s
embarrassing spectacle, broadcast live for hours in the U.S. and across the
world, follows a similar court proceeding in April in New York, where Trump was
charged with falsifying business records related to hush money payments to a
porn star with whom he allegedly cheated on his third wife. Last month the New
York real estate tycoon was ordered to pay $5 million in a civil case for
sexually abusing a woman in a department store in 1996 and later defaming her.
That’s
just the past two months. The former president also invented an elaborate and
quickly discredited conspiracy theory meant to convince his supporters that he
didn’t lose the 2020 election. When his opponent was to be certified anyway,
Trump fomented a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol—an attack for which even
some of his most diehard congressional supporters held him responsible. He was
impeached for those actions (and once before for holding congressionally
appropriated funds hostage in an attempt to get dirt on his political
opponents). He may well face additional federal charges related to the January
6 attacks and state charges in Georgia for his attempts—caught on tape—to bully
the Georgia secretary of state into cheating in his behalf.
There
are many reasons to believe he will be—and ought to be—a convicted felon. And
if current polling holds, he will also be the 2024 Republican presidential
nominee. It’s a thoroughly depressing prospect.
We say
that not as supporters of Joe Biden or his party. To the contrary, we believe
Biden has been a bad president, too often beholden to the far left and too
willing to break promises he made to be a unifying leader. He has pandered to
progressives on fiscal and cultural issues, cast good-faith opponents of his
voting rights policies as Jim-Crow-era racists, and portrayed critics of his
profligate spending as nihilistic radicals. The questions about his mental
acuity—raised by Democrats and Republicans alike—come from his age (80) and his
public appearances. His vice president, Kamala Harris, is by all accounts even
more progressive and more divisive. Four more years of Joe Biden as president
would be bad for the country.
Donald
Trump as the Republican nominee makes a second term for Joe Biden likely. Most
elected Republicans understand this and, in the comfort of private
conversation, not only acknowledge this reality but offer withering critiques
of Trump and his behavior that they strain to avoid making in public.
With all
the humility we can muster about the likelihood they’ll listen to us, we
implore them: Say in public those things about Donald Trump that you so often
say in private. And start with the latest indictment.
The
offenses detailed in the indictment are serious. Trump took from the White
House hundreds of sensitive documents at the end of his term. Some were
classified at the highest levels—records related to U.S. nuclear programs and
potential American weaknesses, war plans with Iran, foreign and domestic weapons
capabilities, among others. Many were haphazardly stored in boxes around the
Mar-a-Lago resort, a poorly secured magnet for foreign spies.
The
National Archives asked Trump, repeatedly and in good faith, to return these
materials. He ignored some of these requests and rejected others. He played
games with the FBI, enlisting his aides to hide boxes from investigators and
insisting that his lawyers lie on his behalf. A transcript of an interview with
Trump from July 2021 appears to show the former president presenting a highly
classified document to visitors without clearances to see it—and acknowledging
that he didn’t have declassification authority.
“As
president I could have declassified it,” Trump said. “Now I can’t, you know,
but this is still a secret.” He added, “Isn’t that interesting?”
It is
interesting—and illegal. An enlisted soldier or midlevel CIA bureaucrat who’d
done the same would be on his way to jail.
The
documents that Trump took are “among the most sensitive secrets that the
country has,” said Bill Barr, Trump’s attorney general, in an interview over
the weekend. “If even half of it is true, then he’s toast,” Barr added. “It’s a
very detailed indictment and it’s very damning.”
Barr is
right. And what makes the indictment so devastating is that so much of the
evidence presented over its pages comes directly from Trump and those fighting
in his behalf. If there are “deep state” actors out to get Donald Trump—a
reasonable assumption, given details from John Durham’s investigation and the Justice
Department’s inspector general—it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Trump
and his hand-picked aides are literally the ones giving the “deep state” the
evidence it needs to convict him. We think the legal case against Trump in New
York is flimsy and political, but we don’t know anyone who finds it hard to
believe that Trump attempted to buy the silence of a porn star paramour. Donald
Trump is the author of his own drama.
We’re
sympathetic to concerns from those who worry about double standards. Republicans
who protest that Trump is being prosecuted by the same Justice Department that
let Hillary Clinton off the hook over her own classified-documents scandal have
a point. Clinton was “extremely careless”—in then-FBI Director James Comey’s
phrasing—with the handling of top-secret materials when she hosted them on a
private email server in her New York home as secretary of state. Comey’s
decision not to recommend charges for Clinton was deeply controversial at the
time; we think she should have been prosecuted. These facts make Clinton’s recent
self-satisfied victory lap—she used the news of Trump’s indictment to hawk “But Her Emails” merch on Twitter—a disgraceful
reminder of why she was weak enough to lose to Trump.
If
Trump’s alleged conduct were equivalent to Clinton’s, that wouldn’t necessarily
mean Trump’s indictment was wrong. The answer to partisan double standards
isn’t to abandon standards altogether; it’s to insist on the nonpartisan
application of them. This is especially true when the standard under discussion
is the rule of law.
But this
is beside the point. The conduct of Trump and Clinton is not equivalent. Trump
is charged not only with mishandling highly classified materials, but with
executing a shockingly clumsy scheme to avoid handing them back to the
government (and lying to cover his tracks). Trump’s intent to deceive shines
out from the indictment like a fog light. And the fact that he has
insisted—before the indictment and after—he is allowed to have the materials he
took is effectively an admission of guilt.
The law
is clear that anyone with unauthorized possession of documents related to
national defense who “willfully retains” and “fails to deliver” them to the
proper authorities is in violation. Looking the other way at Trump’s alleged
actions would have corrosive effects, not the least of which would be declawing
any future effort by the U.S. government to prosecute those who mishandled
classified documents.
Sen.
Marco Rubio once pointed to those corrosive effects in condemning Clinton’s behavior.
Clinton, he said, “left sensitive and classified national security information
vulnerable to theft and exploitation by America’s enemies. Her actions were
grossly negligent, damaged national security and put lives at risk.” What’s
more, he added, “Clinton’s actions have sent the worst message to the millions
of hard-working federal employees who hold security clearances and are expected
to go to great lengths to secure sensitive government information and abide by
the rules. They don’t take their oaths lightly, and we shouldn’t expect any
less of their leaders.”
Indeed,
we shouldn’t lower our expectations. But Rubio, now the ranking Republican on
the Senate Intelligence Committee, is today defending Trump’s behavior with
claims that would have been too embarrassing to articulate for the
once-principled senator. “There’s no allegation that there was harm done to
the, to the national security,” Rubio said this week on CBS. “There’s no
allegation that he sold it to a foreign power or that it was trafficked to
somebody else or that anybody got access to it.”
Got
that? In 2016, merely leaving classified information vulnerable earned the
sternest of rebukes. In 2023, “there’s no allegation that he sold it to a
foreign power.”
Other
Republicans have been as pathetic. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy defended
Trump’s storage of some boxes in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom by pointing out that
bathrooms have locking doors. (He failed to note that most bathrooms are locked
from the inside.)
But
we’ve been encouraged by the emergence of a Republican “sanity caucus.” Among
Trump’s primary opponents, former Gov. Chris Christie has been forthright in
calling Trump’s actions leading to the indictment “inexcusable.” Former Vice
President Mike Pence has said he “cannot defend what is alleged.” On Capitol
Hill, Sen. Mitt Romney correctly said Trump “brought these charges upon
himself,” and has been joined by Sens. John Thune, John Cornyn, and Lisa
Murkowski in expressing concern about the underlying alleged crime. Rep. Dan
Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, said: “It’s very problematic. There’s a reason
I’m not—not defending it.” There are other Republicans willing to speak the
truth, but nowhere near enough.
***
All of
what Trump has shown disregard for—the letter and spirit of the law, the
security of sensitive information, the foundational republican compact of the
country that elevates the Constitution and the rule of law over the will of its
leaders—is not good for anyone. And with every opportunity that
responsible leaders fail to do something about it, Americans just get more used
to it.
If none
of these moral arguments convince those who would call themselves leaders of
the Republican Party, then perhaps an appeal to base political considerations
is in order. What would the GOP accept by defending Trump to the hilt, or even
just standing by silently? Defeat wrested from the jaws of victory.
In every
national election since Trump’s improbable victory in 2016, the GOP suffered
significant costs because of its close association with Trump. A dismal midterm
in 2018. Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in 2020. The flipping of Senate control in
early 2021 after two disastrous runoffs in Georgia. Disappointing 2022 midterm
elections that gave House Republicans a razor-thin majority but denied the
party the Senate majority. The more voters see Trump, the less they like him
and his party.
While
early evidence shows the Republican base rallying around Trump in the wake of
this latest indictment, these developments repulse those who lean Republican
but can’t stand the former president. Those voters—many of them John McCain
Republicans—may not be wanted by the likes of Trump acolyte Kari Lake, but they (along with true
independents and moderates) make the difference in close states like Arizona.
They don’t want Trump.
Republican
officials, party leaders, donors, and voters ought to look at the indictment
through the eyes of Americans who are not enamored with this man. The man who
told his supporters on January 6, 2021, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re
not going to have a country anymore” right before they stormed the Capitol to
stop the lawful and constitutional transfer of power. The man who may still
face more legal trouble, including from a grand jury in Georgia considering his
alleged actions to overturn the 2020 election in that state. The man who was
impeached twice and who downplayed racist violence in Charlottesville and who
has praised foreign dictators and who has enlisted his fellow Republicans to
defend him throughout it all—while only offering headaches and heartaches and
defeat after disappointing defeat in return.
It’s a
cliche to say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and expecting a different result. But in that spirit, let’s say this: Sticking
with Trump? It’s insanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment