I got a call from a friend of mine who's been watching the Trump trial in New York City as well as Trump's other legal issues. He wanted reassurance that he's not crazy, that what he's seeing is real. We started by talking about the Trump fal…
I got a call from a friend of mine who's been watching the Trump trial in New York City as well as Trump's other legal issues. He wanted reassurance that he's not crazy, that what he's seeing is real. We started by talking about the Trump falsification of documents trial in New York. First, here are the basics:
Trump is accused of felony falsification of business records. The alleged falsification of business records revolves around reimbursing his former fixer, Michael Cohen, for paying hush money to former porn star Stormy Daniels. This involves a series of issues:
Trump has denied he ever had sex with Daniels. She testified and gave vivid detail of the sexual encounter she had with him.
David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer, testified that he paid Daniels for her story and then didn't publish it. He also testified that Trump's main concern in keeping it hidden was how it might damage his election campaign (rather than its effect on his relationship with his wife, Melania).
Evidence was presented that Cohen paid the money on behalf of Trump and that he was, in fact, reimbursed by Trump and that that money was not a retainer fee for him as Trump's lawyer but was a reimbursement.
It is accepted by all that the reimbursement was listed as a business expense rather than a campaign expense. The question is whether Trump knew that that's how it was listed, and that's the heart of the issue. If it was simply a false listing of a business record, then it's just a misdemeanor. If the falsification of the business record was in order to cover up another crime, and if Trump knew about it, then he is guilty of a felony. The alleged other crime is violation of various campaign laws because the public had a right to know about this campaign payment.
Proof of that final and key factor depends on the word of proven liar, Michael Cohen. Cohen's record should not disqualify his credibility. Gangsters and mobsters are often convicted based on the testimony of all sorts of murderers and drug dealers who are their underlings. Mob bosses don't exactly hang around with people whose credibility is unchallengeable, after all. Not only that, but Cohen's story line is entirely credible, is backed up by documentary evidence, and it is unlikely that the defense will produce any witness (specifically, Donald Trump) who can contradict his claims. As far as the outcome of the trial, the question is whether Cohen's testimony is sufficient to erase any "reasonable doubt" that Trump is not guilty.
Effect on the election However, the more important question is whether a guilty verdict will affect the election outcome. The great majority of potential voters have their minds made up. They won't be affected by the trial's outcome. The real question is whether the swing voters - maybe 5-10% overall - will be affected. In a close race, they are likely to determine the outcome in the "swing states".
Mar-a-Lago Stolen Documents Case In my opinion, a guilty verdict will not have a huge impact on these voters. What I think would have a real impact is the classified documents case in Florida. There, it is indisputable that Trump absconded with all sorts of top secret government documents, that he defied subpoenas to return the documents and that he lied to the FBI. Not only are all of these serious federal felonies, more important they would be seen as such by that key 10% of swing voters. The case is open and shut, but it won't come to trial before the election. Why is that?
The prosecution faces a double defense team: Trump attorney Todd Blanche (center) and Trump judge Aileen Cannon (far right).
Judge Aileen Cannon Part of the reason is that special prosecutor Jack Smith is facing two defense teams. The first is Trump's lawyers. The other is the Trump-appointed judge in the case, Aileen Cannon.
Cannon first came under scrutiny in August of 2022 when she issued a pro-Trump ruling that would have indefinitely slowed down the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the classified documents that Trump was illegally holding. Her ruling was so off base that it was quickly thrown out by the Eleventh Circuit appeals court.
Now, in this case, Cannon has made a series of bizarre decisions that delay the case. For example, before the case is even ready for trial, she has had the two sides to prepare opinions on what instructions the judge - herself - should give to the jury at the conclusion of the case.
Cannon had also ruled that the names of all potential witnesses should be revealed to the public. This is despite the long record Trump has of encouraging intimidation of those who oppose him, including witnesses. After Special Prosecutor Smith made it clear that he would appeal that ruling, Cannon rescinded it.
Her most recent decision is the death knell for a speedy trial. She had originally set May 20 as the trial date. She recently rescinded that date without setting any other date.
Criticisms of Cannon There have been multiple criticisms of Cannon's rulings, such as this one on CNN and this one on Yahoo. They all imply that this young and inexperienced judge is simply over her head. A number of Democratic senators, however, have implied that she's simply ruling in Trump's favor, "deliberately slow walking" the case. Smith and Attorney General Garland have been silent, however. This markedly contrasts with Trump's denunciations of any judge who doesn't rule in his favor.
Attorney General Merrick Garland was missing in action for over a year.
Special Council Jack Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland and President Biden Why the silence of Smith and Garland? The answer leads to the heart of the issue of why it has taken this long in the first place. Let's not forget that Garland only appointed a special council in November of 2022. He only did so after he faced considerable criticism for his inaction from top members of his own party like US Congressman Adam Schiff who said he "vehemently disagreed" with Garland's inaction.
Reflecting the view of the man who appointed him, President Biden, Garland is dedicated to maintaining the decorum of US capitalist democracy. Going after a former president is unprecedented and has spelled a crisis in relations between the two main capitalist parties. That is why Garland didn't act until he was forced to and why he and Smith are silent regarding Cannon acting as an agent to Trump.
And this gets back to the question my friend asked. No, he is not crazy and yes he is seeing exactly what he thinks he's seeing: The long delay in going after Trump legally and the present refusal to really speak out against Cannon are symptoms of the Democrats' longing for a day gone by. They are symptoms of their forlorn wish that we are not facing the most serious threat to capitalist democracy that the US capitalist class has faced since the Civil War. How can they be so dense? As I said to my friend, let's not forget that "democracy" is only the adjective; the noun is "capitalist" and that's what they represent - the wish to return to the stable rule of capital. The only way to launch an all out defense of democracy at this time is to mobilize the working class, and the capitalist class - including their Democratic representatives - oppose that even more than they oppose a one person, right wing populist dictatorship.
A study of history shows that those who clung to capitalist democracy above all else did so right to their graves in Germany in the 1930s. It's easy to see that historically, but it seems insane when we're living through it.
No comments:
Post a Comment