Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2023-06-13 12:11 pm
l33tminion) wrote2023-06-13 12:11 pm
Donald "My Boxes" Trump
This is going on about the same topic two posts in a row, but it's not often a former US President gets indicted on fairly obvious federal felonies (at least, not until that happens another two times later this year), crimes where the would be nigh-universal agreement about their seriousness only a few years (or, in some cases, days) ago.
I wish people who are suggesting that it's "too divisive" or whatever to prosecute Trump to really engage with the question of what should be done about an ex-President who overtly commits serious crimes out of a motivation that amounts to "who cares" or "I don't wanna".
(Someone on Twitter, who I fail to credit by forgetting exactly who they were, called this the "My. Boxes." theory of Trump's motivation in this case. Trump had fun showing around his cool official secret documents during his Presidency (which, I reiterate, he never took seriously), he wanted to continue doing that during his post-Presidency (whether or not he entertained delusions that the whole "not getting reelected" thing was on the verge of being straightened out). When NARA asked for stuff back, it all seemed like bureaucratic BS to Trump. He wondered why he couldn't just hide the documents, or get rid of the documents, or tell them to get bent, or get them to go away, anything that didn't involve handing over his collection.)
Trump's lack of seriousness in motive doesn't make the crime less serious in consequences. For one thing, Trump has a lot of ways of lining up things such that he can make his financial interests line up against America's interest without any specific quid-pro-quos. Trump makes it easy to pay money to get access to Trump, and to the areas where these documents were (apparently) just piled around. And Trump might not be much for making plans, but people near him were (allegedly) willing to solicit quid pro quos on the assurance that they could bend the big guy's ear.
(Yeah, "don't elect a guy who does that sort of thing" is good advice, but that ship has sailed.)
Some people have been bringing up the Presidential Records Act and pointing out that Presidents have a lot of discretion what counts as personal versus Presidential records under that act. That's irrelevant to this indictment, even though NARA was the one that came calling about the misplaced documents. That isn't about classified documents or national defense information, the sort of thing that the Presidential Records Act gives Presidents discretion about is documents about or by a President, think personal notes or recorded conversations. People have been bringing up a Clinton era scandal (???) on that point re taped interviews stored in the back of a drawer of socks, which were arguably "Presidential records" (in that they were literal recordings of a President), and a court deferred to Clinton in saying those were personal, not official. Needless to say, those weren't classified and didn't include state secrets that were waved around in front of whoever.
One thing that stood out to me in all this discussion was a blog post written by lawyer Ken White, a follow up on a podcast episode where he discussed the indictment, including the possibility that it might have negative consequences. Was it unwise to indict? Ken points out that the Principles of Federal Prosecution list four reasons not to prosecute:
1. You can't prove the case.
2. Prosecution serves no compelling Federal interest.
3. Criminal prosecution is already being done elsewhere.
4. There exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.
From that indictment, 1 doesn't apply to this case. 2 doesn't apply, the Federal government does have a clear interest in state secrets not being shown to just whoever and FBI etc. not being impeded in their investigations. 3 doesn't apply. 4 doesn't either, measures short of this were extensively tried before the FBI even got involved, and I don't know what other process exists to prevent Trump from continuing to commit the same sorts of crimes any time he feels like it, including showing off other classified documents still in his possession.
That same manual also considers the situation where a prosecutor might doubt that they can obtain a conviction for political reasons, or just because the defendant is very popular. The answer it gives is that prosecution should move forward anyways. Basically, there's a system for trying to obtain fair judges and impartial juries, no system is perfect, but it's the system we've got and you need to try to make it work. Judge Cannon certainly could do things that would torpedo the case, to give one example, a judge can deliver an acquittal as a matter of law. And that's final, as far as prosecution of the defendant is concerned. But just as many on "Team Trump" turn out not to be on "team go to jail for the guy", Cannon's extraordinary (and rebuked-on-appeal) deference to Trump on procedural motions is not at all the same as just fabricating an acquittal out of whole cloth. (And if the outcome Cannon wants is for Trump to get away with whatever at any cost, the DOJ certainly shouldn't achieve that result for her.)
I wish people who are suggesting that it's "too divisive" or whatever to prosecute Trump to really engage with the question of what should be done about an ex-President who overtly commits serious crimes out of a motivation that amounts to "who cares" or "I don't wanna".
(Someone on Twitter, who I fail to credit by forgetting exactly who they were, called this the "My. Boxes." theory of Trump's motivation in this case. Trump had fun showing around his cool official secret documents during his Presidency (which, I reiterate, he never took seriously), he wanted to continue doing that during his post-Presidency (whether or not he entertained delusions that the whole "not getting reelected" thing was on the verge of being straightened out). When NARA asked for stuff back, it all seemed like bureaucratic BS to Trump. He wondered why he couldn't just hide the documents, or get rid of the documents, or tell them to get bent, or get them to go away, anything that didn't involve handing over his collection.)
Trump's lack of seriousness in motive doesn't make the crime less serious in consequences. For one thing, Trump has a lot of ways of lining up things such that he can make his financial interests line up against America's interest without any specific quid-pro-quos. Trump makes it easy to pay money to get access to Trump, and to the areas where these documents were (apparently) just piled around. And Trump might not be much for making plans, but people near him were (allegedly) willing to solicit quid pro quos on the assurance that they could bend the big guy's ear.
(Yeah, "don't elect a guy who does that sort of thing" is good advice, but that ship has sailed.)
Some people have been bringing up the Presidential Records Act and pointing out that Presidents have a lot of discretion what counts as personal versus Presidential records under that act. That's irrelevant to this indictment, even though NARA was the one that came calling about the misplaced documents. That isn't about classified documents or national defense information, the sort of thing that the Presidential Records Act gives Presidents discretion about is documents about or by a President, think personal notes or recorded conversations. People have been bringing up a Clinton era scandal (???) on that point re taped interviews stored in the back of a drawer of socks, which were arguably "Presidential records" (in that they were literal recordings of a President), and a court deferred to Clinton in saying those were personal, not official. Needless to say, those weren't classified and didn't include state secrets that were waved around in front of whoever.
One thing that stood out to me in all this discussion was a blog post written by lawyer Ken White, a follow up on a podcast episode where he discussed the indictment, including the possibility that it might have negative consequences. Was it unwise to indict? Ken points out that the Principles of Federal Prosecution list four reasons not to prosecute:
1. You can't prove the case.
2. Prosecution serves no compelling Federal interest.
3. Criminal prosecution is already being done elsewhere.
4. There exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.
From that indictment, 1 doesn't apply to this case. 2 doesn't apply, the Federal government does have a clear interest in state secrets not being shown to just whoever and FBI etc. not being impeded in their investigations. 3 doesn't apply. 4 doesn't either, measures short of this were extensively tried before the FBI even got involved, and I don't know what other process exists to prevent Trump from continuing to commit the same sorts of crimes any time he feels like it, including showing off other classified documents still in his possession.
That same manual also considers the situation where a prosecutor might doubt that they can obtain a conviction for political reasons, or just because the defendant is very popular. The answer it gives is that prosecution should move forward anyways. Basically, there's a system for trying to obtain fair judges and impartial juries, no system is perfect, but it's the system we've got and you need to try to make it work. Judge Cannon certainly could do things that would torpedo the case, to give one example, a judge can deliver an acquittal as a matter of law. And that's final, as far as prosecution of the defendant is concerned. But just as many on "Team Trump" turn out not to be on "team go to jail for the guy", Cannon's extraordinary (and rebuked-on-appeal) deference to Trump on procedural motions is not at all the same as just fabricating an acquittal out of whole cloth. (And if the outcome Cannon wants is for Trump to get away with whatever at any cost, the DOJ certainly shouldn't achieve that result for her.)