An intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger
Sarah Smith at the BBC leans on the same aspects of the indictment as I did.
Some US commentators have introduced another reason why they think these charges are the most serious. They see in Mr Trump’s alleged conduct a threat to the ideals that underpin the bedrock of the country.
Not since the nation’s founding has any president “voted out of office been accused of plotting to hold onto power in an elaborate scheme of deception and intimidation that would lead to violence in the halls of Congress,” writes Peter Baker in the New York Times.
He goes on: “As serious as hush money and classified documents may be, this third indictment in four months gets to the heart of the matter, the issue that will define the future of American democracy.”
Mr Smith also made a similar point in the indictment, that Mr Trump created “an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and eroded public faith in the administration of the election”.
Exactly so. You’d think everyone would see it that way – including Republicans.
The way I’d put it is:
The federal indictment in Florida on the classified materials is the most clear-cut case. They seem to have him dead to rights on that one, barring a runaway MAGA jury, shenanigans by Judge Cannon, or of course the possibility that Trump wins election and orders DOJ to dismiss the case.
The DC indictment for conspiracy to defraud has some tricky elements — exactly what conduct is protected by the First Amendment, and how do you prove Trump’s state of mind — but is the most “serious” in terms of being the worst offense against the country.
The NY state indictment seems to be the weakest and most ticky-tack — which is not to say it shouldn’t have been brought.
The GA indictment, assuming there is one, is likely to be similar to the DC one.
Ever since I took constitutional law in my first BA program, I have been struck by the fact that this system only works if everyone agrees to follow it. Short of a military coup, there really isn’t a way to remove a sitting president from the White House if he loses and refuses to go. I suppose security could usher him out…but that still creates a violation of the principles of our government.
Peacefully handing power over to the next elected official has been a hallmark of democracy. Obama couldn’t possibly have enjoyed handing power over to Trump…but he did. Bush almost certainly couldn’t have loved handing power over to Obama…but he did. That’s how it has to work if we are going to maintain any semblance of democracy.
I agree; I think the January 6 charges, the attempt to hold on to power by any means, is a more serious threat than stolen documents.
Or, to go back a little further: Al Gore actually presided over the counting of the Electoral College votes from the 2000 election. Unlike Trump, he had a plausible claim that he was robbed, but he didn’t try to invoke this cockamamie John Eastman “theory” that the VP can just declare the winner unilaterally.
I often see people pointing to Washington stepping down as President after two terms as a key point in the Constitutional order, but I think the election of 1800 was more important. After all, Washington was the consensus president, but he didn’t particularly want the job, and was happy to retire to his farm. But when the incumbent Adams lost a nasty race to Jefferson, he must have been tempted to try to hang on. Instead, he turned over the keys (metaphorically, of course–he wasn’t terribly gracious about it) and left.
Of course, that election exposed a fundamental flaw in the electoral system when Jefferson and his purported running mate Burr ended up tied. But everyone recognized what a fiasco that was and so they quickly amended the Constitution to separate the vote for President and VP.
WaM,
This is veering off topic, but any time someone starts waxing rhapsodic about the eternal wisdom of the Founders of the Constitution, I just smile and remember that they’re talking about a group of people who thought it would work out just swell to give every elector two votes for president, and make the runner-up vice president. You didn’t need a ton of foresight to realize that it would play out exactly the way it did: in 1796, Adams ends up as President with a VP he’s at odds with, so in 1800 there’s an organized effort to have a “presidential ticket” where a party’s supporters coordinate their votes and create a tie among their Presidential and VP candidates.
And to be fair, I think many of them did see the potential for those problems, but just assumed that “we won’t have political factions that turn into political parties here, because we’re Americans, damnit, and we will simply elect the best men (and we do mean men) for the job, and these fine statesmen will work it all out!” Which doesn’t speak very well for their eternal wisdom, either….
Don’t get me wrong; the fact that the U.S. Constitution has endured as long as it has is remarkable and nothing to sneeze at. It’s just the putting people on a pedestal as infallible Wise Men that I take issue with.
Same. I don’t love the sanctimony that surrounds every mention of them, either.
Well a big part of the conservative (and I am including “real” conservatives) mindset is a sort of ancestor worship and clinging to continuity. It’s why they can’t move past glossing over the Reconstruction/Redemption period; the bad guys *were* their ancestors so whatever they personally believe about their positions now they can’t include people who they’re supposed to be proud of amongst that number (rather than realizing they’re neither deserving of credit nor blame for the actions of their ancestors).
It is useful and instructive to read the writings of the “founding fathers” and we shouldn’t be toppling their statues, but they’re dead and we owe them nothing (and having read some of their writings I’m pretty sure many of them would agree).
They might as well say PBUH everytime the name Washington is spoken.