Yes, Trump was indicted in Manhattan. After the indictment becomes available, I’ll do a reading of it here: https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield and then I’ll put it on this blog. You can check back midweek.
If you’ve seen any of Trump’s recent rants, you know that they are unhinged and dangerous. If he keeps it up, he might end up with a gag order or even pretrial detention.
In other words, Trump does not appear to be preparing a normal defense, which is no surprise. Instead, his aim seems to be to create as much chaos as possible with the goal of tearing the country apart.
His method is to (1) Fire up his supporters and (2) bait his critics into helping him destroy rule of law.
I. Firing up the Reactionaries
On ABC, Mike Pence, a reactionary, said:
His comment was an example of whataboutism (a logical fallacy: “but what about violent crime?”) with a factual inaccuracy thrown in: Crime in New York is down.
The way to read his statement, though, is a reactionary call to arms. For what I mean, we need a bit of history about our criminal justice system. (A lot of this will be familiar to you all, but I need to cover the history to make my point.)
Our modern criminal justice system took form after the Civil War when white supremacists found a way around the 13th Amendment, which prohibited forced labor except in the case of punishment for crimes after conviction. Their solution: Convict lots of Black men, put them in prison, and then put them in chain gangs.
The criminal justice system resembled a conveyor belt: A person (well, a Black person) could go swiftly from being accused of a crime to hanging from a tree. The criminal justice system was basically a vehicle for maintaining the nineteenth-century hierarchy with white men at the top.
This view of criminal law continued until fairly recently. When Republicans said, “We are the party of law and order,” what they meant was “we want white prosecutors to move quickly to put Black men in prison.”
There’ve been a few changes over the past 100 years.
To begin with, Charles Hamilton Houston, his protégé Thurgood Marshall, Pauli Murray, and others took it as their task to reform criminal procedures to create more fairness.
They understood that the law fell more heavily on Black men. Their idea was not to even things up by making it easier to inflict punishment on white people. Their idea was to make it harder to inflict punishment on anyone. They embraced jurist William Blackstone’s idea that it was better to let ten guilty people escape than to let one innocent person suffer.
Their goal was to turn a conveyor belt into an obstacle course. The idea was that more procedures, regulations, and checkpoints meant less chance an innocent person would be punished.
As a result of decades of work, reformers succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional to do things like beat confessions out of people, stop and search people without probable cause, and arrest people on a whim.
Another change: In a few places, we now have some (but not as many as I’d like) progressive prosecutors. Some progressive prosecutors understand that mass incarceration is a terrible idea that destroys communities, tears families apart, and actually increases the conditions that create certain kinds of crime. Others have different priorities: Instead of going after things like drug use with the goal of filling up the prisons as quickly as possible, they devote their time and resources to financial crimes.
Reactionaries hate these kinds of prosecutors. (For more on that, see this post.)
Finally, a third change: Before the 1930s, it was mostly legal to do things like fix prices, manipulate markets, engage in insider trading, and cheat customers. Unscrupulous white men could (and did) get rich by cheating. (For how the Trump family made its money, see this post.)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal gave us worker protections, social security, and regulations intended to keep people from cheating. Republicans hate those regulations and have been trying ever since the 1930s to roll back the New Deal and dismantle the regulatory agencies. (The reactionary word for ‘regulatory agencies’ is ‘deep state.’)
The Civil Rights movement also brought a wave of regulations designed to create racial fairness. The reactionaries also hate those regulations.
While the criminal justice has improved, there is much work to be done. We need more reforms. We need more good prosecutors. Because prosecutors are either appointed by elected officials or elected directly, elections matter. (For what you can do, see this post.)
When Pence says this:
He means this:
Prosecutors should not be wasting time going after crimes like falsifying business records. In the good old days, that kind of thing wasn’t even a crime.
When Pence says, “Radical left,” he means, “people who don’t want to go back to the way things were 100 years ago.” I suspect he learned from Trump that throwing in an inaccuracy (about crime levels in New York) will bait his critics and send them into a spin.
Lindsay Graham, another reactionary, echoed Pence’s sentiments when he said:
How can President Trump avoid prosecution in New York? 🤔
On the way to the DA’s office on Tuesday, Trump should smash some windows, rob a few shops and punch a cop. He would be released IMMEDIATELY!
Graham, like Pence, was saying that prosecutors shouldn’t be wasting time and resources going after white men who cheat when there are more serious crimes to deal with.
The best explanation for Pence, Graham, Trump, and their supporters was offered by Richard Hofstadter, who calls theirs the “paranoid style of politics.”
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong. According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as the American way of life. They feel dispossessed and that America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.
They are “determined to repossess it and prevent the final act of subversion.” They, therefore, adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.
Reactionaries defend Trump’s lawbreaking because he is breaking the laws that they don’t think should exist. They will use Trump’s indictment to incite a cultural war because that is how they see it: They see an indictment of Trump as radical prosecutors going after white men for stuff that shouldn’t even be crimes instead of using the criminal justice system for how they think it should be used: maintaining a hierarchy with them on top.
II. Firing up people who don’t like Trump
About a month ago, someone on Mastodon told me this:
“People don’t want a police state until something goes wrong, then they want a police state.”
This particular person was in favor of a police state on the grounds that democracy can’t work, so, because democracy will always dissolve into authoritarianism, you may as well have a police state governed by a dictator who embraces your politics.
I think about that comment when I get complaints like these on social media:
- “The process takes too long which means it’s all hopelessly broken.”
- “Just lock him up now already. We all know he is guilty.”
- “You can’t go by the book when the book is burning”
- “The Democrats / the DOJ is bringing a knife to a gunfight.”
- “The fact that Trump is not yet in prison shows that rule of law is dead.”
I get so many of these comments that I have a FAQ page and I just refer people there. (If you’re new to my blog, check it out here.)
This week, someone on Mastodon showed me the news that DeSantis said he would refuse to extradite Trump. He then demanded to know why DeSantis wasn’t immediately arrested. I tried to explain why this wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) happen.
When he pushed back, I sent him to my FAQ page. He came back and showed me this headline:
Bragg’s office accuses House Republicans of ‘unlawful political interference’
This is from the article:
The office of New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Friday urged House Republicans to withdraw a demand for information on its case against former president Donald Trump, again rebuffing what it characterized as “unlawful political interference” in an ongoing criminal case.
He again demanded to know why all of the people engaged in “unlawful” behavior were not immediately arrested. I tried to explain that not everything “unlawful” carries criminal consequences, and even if there is unlawful behavior, there are procedures and standards, and nothing he showed me indicated that those standards had been met.
He accused me of wanting to keep rich white men above the law.
I’m sure some people like him simply prefer a police state where arrests happen swiftly and need only the word of someone in power. They probably also believe that swift, harsh punishment will actually solve the problem of right-wing extremism.
Many of the people who have spent two years demanding indictments probably believe that swift, harsh punishment would have solved the problem of right-wing extremism. They will remain frustrated and angry no matter how many indictments are brought and no matter how much punishment is inflicted because when right-wing extremism continues, they will say it is all the fault of the prosecutors who “delayed” so long and didn’t immediately arrest them all.
Another person on Mastodon said this to me:
I find it so hard to swallow that Biden isn’t on the TV every damned night using this pro-treason anti-life nonsense to democracies full benefit.
If I was president I’d be dropping the f-bomb on their shit like the military bought too many of them with their inflated budget.
When Trump spent much of his time watching cable news and trying to be in the spotlight so that he could land blows on his enemies and call them names, many of us were horrified and thought it was ridiculous. We thought he should be working on behalf of the American people.
In fact, one trait that distinguishes a fascist leader from a democratic leader is this: Democratic leaders spend their time trying to make lives better for their constituents. Fascist leaders spend their time landing blows on their “enemies.” They try to cultivate an “us and them” mentality.
Now people who evidently hated Trump, want Biden to act like Trump.
Why do people who claim to embrace liberal values turn around and embrace authoritarian tactics?
A few possibilities:
- There is something appealing about having your leader be a strongman who flexes his muscles and spends his day demonstrating that he can land blows on the enemy.
- Social media and a click-drive media environment may be turning many of us all into authoritarians by taking away our ability to hold complex thoughts. We want quick simple solutions. Rage sells. (For more on that, see this post: Can Democracy Survive in America?)
- The criminal justice system has grown so complex that it is beyond the ability of many people to tolerate it. People who embrace authoritarianism often do so because they reject (or cannot tolerate) complexity. For more on that, see this post on the authoritarian personality.
- People see that there are lots of imperfections in our criminal justice system and room for much improvement, so rather than figuring out how they can work for reform the think all democratic processes should be abandoned.
Here is an example of how easily Trump baits his critics into helping him attack the prosecutors who are after him:
- On Saturday, March 18, Trump announced that he would be arrested on Tuesday. He made it up. It wasn’t true.
- Apparently he had everyone spinning including cable news commentators.
- Tuesday came and went without his arrest.
The disappointment that there was no actually an indictment enraged the anti-Merrick Garland and anti-Alvin Bragg people:
What is interesting is that the person who played her was Trump.
As we are entering the indictment phase, which will move Trump back into the spotlight, the more reactionary Republican leaders will rally around Trump because they are reactionaries, and they see the indictment as another salvo in a cultural war that is eroding their own power.
Meanwhile, as Trump finds himself adjusting to the reality of being a criminal defendant, he will try to bait his critics into helping him attack the “system” that he wants to dismantle.
His goal will be to create chaos, keep people spinning, and get everyone fighting. The solution is not to take the bait.
Someone left a lengthy comment, which I will summarize briefly and put here:
Maybe you should stop working overtime to keep people in a passive, wait-and-see mode that is extremely disempowering and deflating. You need to stop minimizing the extent of the problem.
The threat is real. Trump is dangerous. Right-wing extremists are dangerous. However, the way to combat authoritarianism is not with more authoritarianism.
For how to save democracy using democratic means, see this post.
Someone asked where JJ is this week. I was so tired when I finished writing this, I didn’t even have the energy to ask him to make a statement.
There is another reason why ppl embrace authoritarians: They have been hit by life over and over, not necesarily by the law (but in many cases yes) and see ppl living the high life and want to cause as much pain as they have felt, not justice to uplift ppl but to drag down the others (rightfully or not). You see this in everyday Latam politics…Welcome to our world
I have questioned the authenticity of comments calling for immediate results for some time now, and suspect many are planted by reactionaries to fuel frustration and social unrest.
“I tried to explain that not everything “unlawful” carries criminal consequences.”
Non-lawyer me – What the f@&$? Well then why the heck are you defending it? This is the definition of a broken system.
We have 1000’s of laws that say elected and appointed officials “shall” do X and Y. And we learned during the Trump Presidency that unless there is a specific criminal penalty attached to not doing that thing, they can just keep breaking the law for 4 whole years. I love you Teri, but some of us are tired of being told to “vote harder”. We’ve voted our rear ends off. We’ve volunteered. We’ve canvassed. We’ve gotten others out to vote. Our legal system needs to do its job too. One thing that would go a long way towards fixing this is a general set of criminal penalties for government officials who break laws that don’t have criminal penalties explicitly attached.
Hi, Dave, I almost threw your comment in the trash bin because you were rude. I only have so much patience.
But I’ll explain.
Parking in the wrong place is “unlawful” but does not carry criminal consequences.
Defaming someone is “unlawful” and you can get sued. It does not carry a criminal consequence.
Some requirements for elected officials carry other consequences, such as impeachment and removal.
The only way for everything unlawful to carry criminal consequences is to live in a police state. Many of us would much rather not live in a police state.
If you have questions in the future, please ask them politely. In addition, before asking any other questions, I’d suggest that you read the general FAQ. It’s one of the pinned posts.
Also, I have no idea what “vote harder” means. Each person gets one vote. If enough people vote for a particular candidate, the candidate wins. I suspect that “vote harder” is a snide way of saying “voting doesn’t help” which is a way of rejecting democracy. If voting doesn’t help, what are the alternatives?
If what you saying is “I voted but I don’t have everything I want” then it really isn’t democracy you want. Democracy requires compromise. What you want is autocracy. “I voted. Now give me everything I want” doesn’t work in any democratic form of government.
Instead of the Patience of Job, I want to have the Patience of Teri. A terrific lesson on handling rudeness.
Yes. Surgical. It works.
Teri,
Please help us understand whether or not and to what extent it might be permissible for the prosecutors in NY, GA and DC (DOJ) to strategize or even cooperate in their pursuit of actions/indictments/cases against a common defendant, i. e., may they work together where their evidence or witnesses or timing might overlap. Thanks much
They may share information, but I don’t believe they are strategizing timing or thinking about who goes first. In a case like this I suspect they are completely by the book. Anything else can leak out. By the book remains airtight. Does that make sense? See my FAQs if you haven. t
Thanks Teri but I was thinking more about sharing evidence and witnesses that may also be applicable in another case —Or even making “discovery” available to other prosecutors.
I understand the need to be by the book and to protect against leaks. But I see these prosecutors finding a lot of overlap as they pursued their investigations. Is cooperation like this permissible under the law? If it is, I imagine how much sharing goes on is dependent on the trust each office has in the integrity of other prosecutors and their ability to prevent leaks
Again thanks for all the behind the scenes info you help us understand. Your firm conviction that good prosecutions take time to develop has helped me be much more patient while we wait for the system to grind out indictments and hopefully convictions
I would assume they share information, but each office has to show the source of their evidence. For example, if a prosecutor had evidence against my client that could only be obtained by a search warrant, I would need to see the warrant.
Teri, thank you for all the time you put into writing these blog-posts and reply comments. They really are so helpful. And after reading Dave’s rude reply, I have a question. Or maybe it’s a “thingie” I don’t fully understand: the definition of “criminal consequences.” When you used “criminal” in this sense, is it the same definition that separates it from “civil” w/regard to types of crimes and courts? What I mean: in the example you gave Dave about the parking ticket & how it’s unlawful but doesn’t have criminal consequences, my reaction was “Oh, so a fine/ticket you have to pay for unlawfully parking in the wrong spot is a consequence but not a *criminal* consequence?” The example of defaming someone and being sued—I understand that one better: it’s a civil crime that again, may involve $$, which is a consequence that’s NOT criminal? Are criminal consequences only those that involve prison (or execution, worst case)? Thank you!
Correct. Unlawful can be separated into civil and criminal.
Civil consequences happen as a result of lawsuits.
If the government takes your property (a fine) your freedom (a jail sentence) or your life (execution) that’s criminal because you have a constitutional right to your freedom and your property. The government cannot deprive you of these things without due process.
Criminal matters can be further broken down into infractions (like a parking ticket) or misdemeanors or felonies. A speeding ticket is not civil. It is criminal, but we don’t consider infractions to be crimes.
If you have a ton of speeding tickets, you’re not a convicted criminal, but you certainly have suffered consequences. If, however, instead of speeding you were charged with reckless driving (which can be a misdemeanr) that’s a crime.
Did that help?
People use “consequences” to mean all kinds of different things but really, it’s just something that happens as a result of something else. But people generally mean something vague like “Until Trump spends 5 years in a federal penitiary he hasn’t suffered a consequence” which is sloppy use of language.
Yes, thanks so much. I suspect the sloppy use of language leads to more confusion in life than people can ever imagine— even when it affects them personally!
I am wondering how to refute an argument made by Mr Buck who says that federal level cases have safeguards to filter out political trials that don’t exist at the local level.
https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1642668673297989633?s=46&t=ZSI_Yl_DEISEsdDsM4WKoQ
Thank you for your knowledge, insight, and patience.
Thanks to you, Teri, I’ve learned how not to be played. The press is ready to print anything that will get them clicks and yet, they have nothing of substance to write about. Until there’s been a conviction and sentencing, I’m not clicking on anything having to do with him. They’re going to have to offer more than guessing games to get my clicks, thank you very much.
As always, stellar job Teri.
R
Thank you for your wonderful commentary and insight. I am struck by the question and responses you posed regarding why people who embrace liberal values turn around and embrace authoritarian tactics. In my work as a union leader confronting Library management in a (quite) liberal, large, East-Coast Ivy League university, I can no longer count the number of times these supposedly liberal elites assume authoritarian stances regarding issues large and small. “Management’s rights” is invoked reflexively, as if appealing to the divine rights of kings, with a shocking lack of self-reflection. So I think to your excellent list of possible explanations, we could add the old chestnut about the corrupting effects of power. Give liberal-thinking librarians a tiny bit of power over employees, and they turn all Machievelli on them in a heartbeat. Perhaps, similarly, now that us Democrats perceive that we have “the power,” (whether actual or by proxy), it is not surprising that a small number of our liberal sisters and brothers unthinkingly embrace the authoritarian tactics they deride in others.
Thanks for this.
I think we’re in a scary phase of the information revolution where unprecedented access to information (including “mis-” and “dis-” information) is outpacing people’s sophistication in consuming information.
You say: “The criminal justice system has grown so complex that it is beyond the ability of many people to tolerate it.” – I think it’s not so much an increase in complexity that drives this – it’s the fact that the conduit of information has increased from a limited number of curated sources (mainstream media) to a cacophony from all angles.
The complexity has always been there, but the sources of information artificially simplified the story to create a more approachable world view for people.
People’s desire to refine everything into black and white, or right and wrong is now running into a world where contradictory information is everywhere, and without the tools to sort out fact from fiction, people are resorting to tribalism and identity politics to resolve the conflict.
I’m extremely happy to find voices like yours that promote the process over taking a fixed position. Democracy is strong, but I don’t think it could contain sustained attacks from both sides of the argument. We must remember that the system is as important (or perhaps even more important) to protect as our values.
Hopefully people’s ability to deal with information will catch up and we can have a return to calmer and more functional politics.
Im not sure if democracy cant take our post truth worl TBH, is so much easier to disinform that to undo it, even when everything is backed by hard facts, once the “untruth” is out the damage is done and some ppl will not hear any fact and will take any attempt to reason as an evidence that they must dig even harder in their echo chamber
I can’t disagree with a single word you’ve written here, but…
All his threats are for show. Based on previous prosecutions of his corporate entities, he will have highly competent lawyers and will say as little as possible in court. His previous losses have resulted in fines and meaningless admissions of guilt. When push comes to shove he understands what game he is playing, or pays experts to explain it to him.
Your framing of Republican support for Trump based on reactionary support for the immunity of white men generally, and powerful ones specifically, is very plausible. But I thing a stronger motivation is that Trump owns their voter base lock, stock and barrel, and without that base they are basically the Libertarian Party, and we already have one of those. The few Republicans publicly opposing Trump are now unpersons in the Party, and they apparantly have no idea how to wrest control of the monster they created from Trump, so they defend Trump or remain silent and hope for something to happen. The smarter Republicans understand Trump has no interest and owes nothing to the Party, and in the end the Party will be just one more fall guy to take the rap for Trump’s crimes, but they don’t dare oppose him while he lives. You come at the king, you best not miss.
Another possible answer to the question “Why do people who claim to embrace liberal values turn around and embrace authoritarian tactics?”
I think many have been conditioned by network television: almost every episode of “Law and Order” features a suspect who is arrested, tried, and convicted in the space of an hour; the same is true of many other shows watched by millions.
This is a really good point!
Would love to hear your thoughts about reforms or tweaks bento the judicial process that are used and perhaps abused by the very wealthy. Also about whether the statute of limitations favors white collar criminals. Both these seem at play in the Trump related cases and some people’s confidence in our justice system.
Start with my FAQ page. It is one of my pinned posts.
I observe to worrying trends in the US:
1) mistrust in the integrity of its institutions. This has been fostered UN 45’s administration. The government is corrupted, education is corrupted, elections are fraudulent and now they are going after the justice system. Thi is a terribly evolution. If Joe Doe no longer has any trust in the systems of a functioning state, Joe Doe has nothing to protect but the own skin/ wealth / interests makingJoe Doe susceptible and gullible to any conspiracy theory.Pair that with identifying culprits is the perfect breeding ground for extremism.
2) not getting the message out. Some 30-40% of Americans live in an alternate reality and a large part of the electorate does not hear or understand what the respective administration does for or against them. Paired with poor education a large part of the electorate has no idea what they are voting for and certainly does not base its vote on policies. I find this even more frustrating than the lies and mistrust. How does one get he message to the populace that high speed internet, fu Clio I g roads, more jobs, reduce cost for health care, improved access to health care is courtesy of dem policies, while the GOP is doing the opposite? How do you reach these people…
Someone reading this blog post might come away thinking, “hey, there really could be something to critical race theory.”
Terry, thank you. I so appreciate all your posts. I especially appreciate the “translations” here of what Pence and others say. And I most appreciate the refresher about Thurgood Marshall and Pauly Murray and how they wanted the justice system to be safer for everyone. We get way too tangled int the us/them paradigm, probably as you say, because that’s how social media operates. I just really appreciate the affirmation of these things. They are true, and that means the world to me. And yay to more progressive prosecutors!
I’ve never understood the position of right-wingers who demand a strongman to deal harshly with their enemies, nor this same position adopted by those of us who oppose the right, since such a system is like Russian roulette, where someday the strongman could target You. It’s so short-sighted.
I always enjoy reading the history of our criminal law system, because it’s shocking to realize that the protections we enjoy, however imperfect, are only very recent, and there is a significant segment – the reactionaries as you call them – who are determined to roll it all back. It’s extremely clarifying for you to point out who these people are, what they literally have said, and what they really mean. Thank you!
Teri, thank you. You are absolutely the best legal explainer out there. I do have one question. It revolves around the concept of prosecutorial discretion. (Which I don’t really understand). It seems to me, that if there is a law on the books and we abide by the concept that no one is above the law, then everyone who breaks the law, should be prosecuted. Then the justice system with its checks and protections can play out.
I understand that this would incur enormous costs, we don’t have enough prosecutors, and sometimes the case just isn’t strong enough. When I really think about it, I’m more upset with the legislators than with the prosecutors. To me, if you are going to put a law on the books, and our democracy is based on the rule of law, then that law should be enforced. I was flabbergasted recently at one of our town council meeting. Constituents were approximately 100 to 1 against this new law. Those against encompassed the entire political spectrum from the far left to the far right. The law passed anyway and the vice mayor actually said from the dias something to the effect of “it’s on the books but we don’t have to enforce it. The law will be there if we need it”
This to me is insane. I was wondering your thoughts on this. I guess the bottom line is what you said, elections really do matter.
Thank you again for everything you do.
The only possible way to catch and prosecute every lawbreaker would be to live in a police state. Prosecutors decide where to allocate resources. Not all crimes can be detected without dispensing with Fourth Amendment procedures.
If the we caught lawbreakers and did something constructive, it might be worth the cost, but as matters stand, the United States imprisons more of the population per capita than any other country, including Russia and Saudi Arabia.
You may have committed a crime once yourself. Perhaps once, you ran a red light without anyone seeing? Could you have made an error on your tax forms? If not you, the odds are that a good percentage of the people you know and love made a slip somewhere along the way. Should they all have to wear shackles, experience severe pain, and have their lives ruined?
How many people do you think live their entire lives without once breaking a law? Do you want to build a prison system that houses, say, 50 million people?
Just think about it.
Thanks. Very valid point. I guess where people get frustrated is it often seems that egregious crimes sometimes go unprosecuted and minor infractions, or innocence, can wind up with long jail terms. But again, that’s in the eye of the beholder. I was watching an interview with Anthony Ray Hinton last night and went to bed in tears. No one was held accountable for what they did to him.
As an aside, with the rise of all of this authoritarian activity, I’ve begun to wonder if humankind is experiencing a very negative aspect of evolution. I plan to write more about this on my own website, but the conceit is along this line:
Evolution doesn’t care about quality of life, only the quantity of life with respect to whether an organism/species is an evolutionary success. I.e., the more copies there are, the more successful an organism is from an evolutionary standpoint. Humankind has grown in numbers to the point where we’ve created multiple planetary crises. We’ve also gotten a lot meaner as a species. Are we breeding for aggression? Could the huge upswing in authoritarian “success” with its attendant cruelty be the result of such a shift? I know that historically about a third of any population has authoritarian leanings, but right now, their actions are becoming more dangerous by the day as even people ostensibly opposed to authoritarianism are being goaded into adopting authoritarian tactics.
I wonder the same thing: I wonder if the modern works has created conditions that are more conducive to authoritarianism.
I think the stressors of migration and existential doom from climate change push people into protective mode. They then seek out bullies to protect them.
I understand. When people push back and tell me “but we have no time. Climate change is an immediate disaster” I still think that authoritarian methods are a bad idea, even if they can solve the problem faster.
They will create more problems later.
Authoritarian methods are a bad idea as they increase the level of human greed and aggression which are a large part of how we got to where we are today. In the end, they’ll hasten our extinction if allowed to continue unchecked. The majority of Americans don’t want authoritarianism. We just all have to work together to strengthen our democracy to hold onto it. The unknown of course is whether we’ll be able to do that as you’ve written in many posts over the last few years. Time will tell.
This is a subject that fascinates me also. While evolution “works” by selecting from a variety of outcomes, those most suited to survive, I would add a Jungian twist: what we’re seeing is a surfacing of all the country’s shadow material, the dark and ugly stuff that’s been buried. It must surface where it can be seen for what it is, and dealt with. Only then can the healing begin. I’m actually very optimistic about humankind, even though the problems are massive, systemic, and will likely lead to the death of millions, planetwide.
Consider the arc of the Black Death for example. Millions died, but it eventually led to an understanding of germ theory, the replacement of superstition by the scientific revolution, and so on. The Catholic church was at the height of its power (and corruption), and had no answers for what was going on.
Consider the five or more great extinctions in the geological record. The worst one was the Permian extinction (250 million years ago). It’s very roughly estimated that 80% or so of all species died. When it was over, life exploded into newly “liberated” ecological niches. Life cannot be stopped. Humans aren’t the endpoint in evolution, we’re a stop along the way.
I’m not as optimistic about humankind for the simple reason that human arrogance prevents our species from acting responsibly overall. The fights over the abortion issue show this explicitly. There are too many humans on the planet which means that we encroach on habitats where we should not be. Rather than finding ways to continue or even promote excessive growth, we should be looking for ways to reach a sustainable steady state. We’re one of the few species with the intellectual capability to control our growth or even stop it voluntarily, but instead, the aggressors try to force more population growth even among those who want no part of it, all in their search for power and domination.
Yes, humankind is a stop along the way of evolution, and given our warlike tendencies, our quest for power and control, and our utter disregard for the planetary resources, we’ll eventually die out as a species. Maybe not this century, or even the next, but we’re already seeing the destruction we’ve accelerated through climate change.
Evolution doesn’t involve having the greatest numbers, but rather that the species is “fittest” for its environment (fittest=most appropriate for long term survival, not necessarily strongest) and able to adapt to the various vicissitudes that will arise (like new predators or changes in the environment). Adaptation to unexpected changes is messy, especially when the fit between a population and its environment is less good. Big populations sometimes crash (see deer in New Jersey).
Humans have always had aggressiveness as a trait available to them. Sometimes it has been the characteristic of a society–but sometimes not (Graeber & Wengrow”s *The Dawn of Everything* is a good read on this). When we’re stressed, it’s typical to become more reactive (even reactionary as Teri was discussing. I don’t think that means that reaction, aggressiveness and authoritarianism are the fittest strategy for species success. It’s more akin to rats crowded into small spaces starting to attack one another.
Being fittest, probably means discovering ways to have compassion on the broadest scale. But part of compassion is fierceness for the sake of those who are attacked by those who eschew compassion. But lots of people just want to be fierce against their enemies or people they don’t like, rather than seeking to build a compassionate, effective society. Some of the people who want to immediately punish all lawbreakers that have been hocking Teri tend in that direction. I’d say they’re being reactionary in their own way, or at least reactive.
In the end, life is very complicated and a somewhat more compassionate society is going to be complicated by not being always compassionate or non-reactive. Laws are a structure of polity and they help us put things together, but they don’t substitute for the human struggle to be compassionate and to live well.
Were we any less, as species, authoritarian or more? I suspect the former, most of our history we have had absolute kings or dictators not demoracy….. I think is that now all the crazies can communicate way easier and make synergy around the world
It’s hard to watch the GOP extremists attack our democracy again and again. They do have the right to say what they want even though it is damaging to the country, and to people directly because of the violence they unleash from their willfully ignorant supporters.
That said, I’m curious about the constraints to free speech related to incitement. Trump has been a continuous vehicle for incitement ever since he entered the political arena. At what point does the GOP extremists’ speech reach the point of being unlawful incitement to violence?
In general, the standard for when speech crosses into incitement is given in Ohio v. Brandenburg. You’ll find lots of explainers out there. (I’ve done a few, so you can search my blog as well.)
Once he has been charged, though, there are additional things he can’t do without tainting procedures, so a judge can silence him.
Good luck with that, though, right? He’ll fight it and everyone will have rage meltdowns.
If Trump is true to form, I’d expect him to push the envelope as far as he can get away with. And then there are the GOP extremists making a heck of a lot of senseless noise to amplify his nonsense.
He will, and the anti-Garland people will blame Garland.
It makes no sense, but that is what will happen.
I really would like fair and rational, but I know that won’t happen in our lifetimes (we’re the same age from what I can tell). I enjoy science fiction, but I’m rather tired of the extremists trying to impose their dystopian fantasy on the rest of us in real life.
So democracy is the best we have, and rule of law is crucial for a well-functioning democracy. Seeing this whole thing play out, which for investigations of this complexity is happening quickly, gives me hope that just maybe our rule of law will survive. As for the Garland haters, well, they’re deluded and have bought into the GOP extremist dystopian fantasy. I try to ignore them.
I’m glad that we have Garland and his team, along with some reputable and conscientious DAs like Bragg and Willis. We’re getting quite the legal education from all of this thanks to people like you who so patiently explain what’s happening.
You mentioned a gag order and pretrial detention.
Can you do a short explainer on each of those?
Gag order: how specific must it be? Like the infamous cryptobroh, might it be a ban on using any computer? What’s the process? Can it be appealed?
Pretrial detention: how does it work? Where would he go? Could it be house arrest with an ankle bracelet? Can it be appealed?
I’ll wait and see what happens and explain as we go. These things vary by judge and jurisdiction as well, and I’m not a NY lawyer, so I’ll be learning as we go.
In general, if the criminal defendant continues with dangerous behavior the court will first try to get him to shut up (gag order) and if he violates that, pretrial detention.
But you can’t really shut Trump up because he has so many surrogates, so he can talk through them. Most defendants don’t have a propaganda loop that includes a major cable network.
One thing I remember about the immediate post-Jan. 6 period was that there was a time of blessed silence (from Trump) after he was kicked off Twitter, and hadn’t yet found a comparable forum for amplifying his nonsense. Now, there were still masses of right wing sycophants banging away on Fox & OANN & Newsmax & elsewhere, but Trump himself had lost his microphone, and took a while to find another. Without its ringleader, the Great Wurlitzer couldn’t find a unified tune to play, at least for a bit.
The only thing that’ll silence Trump completely will be the grim reaper, but if he suffers a major setback (gag order, pre-trial confinement) we’ll have a respite.
What is a better label (epithet) to use about Republicans?
> On ABC, Mike Pence, a reactionary, said:
They are not really opposed to change. They favor changing interpretations of the Constitution to suit their new-found interpretations of Christianity. Is it still reactionary to want to change laws to go back to the way things were 90 years ago? That seems like advocating for change rather than resisting change.
How about just calling them fascists?
Give up on “conservative” or even “reactionary.” (I’m OK with right wing.)
The term “fascist” is loaded. I believe “Reactionary” is more descriptive. It was the word I learned in school to describe the far right.
I am seeing “fascist” tendencies on the left as well as the right.
Indeed!
Thank you, Teri. You provided another excellent analysis, but WHERE is JJ??
Thanks so much for your wisdom, knowledge and concise explanations – you’ve helped me be patient, and restored my faith in “the system” – it is not perfect, but neither are we as human beings! I look forward to your comments mid-week, always helpful to parse the legalese.
Speaking of perfect non-human beings, love to J J please, even if he has no statement at this time. I respect his privacy, and know he is busy – heaven only know what that UPS person may be up to…
This is an excellent analysis. I guess I believe that there are fewer reactionaries than supporters of democracy and the rule of law in America these days, but since the reactionaries still have a lot of the power accrued through the corrupt system that they want to return to, it is not clear how this struggle will turn out.
“Trump does not appear to be preparing a normal defense.”
He wants it to be a media circus with HIM as the ringmaster!
This post reminds me of a scene in the Divergent series. In the series, one of the main protagonists is “Jeanine” is a tyrant ridding the world of people who don’t conform to her rule. Of course, a bunch of these people inevitably band together, go to war and throw her out of power. After which, another leader takes over and proceeds to exact revenge on all of Jeanine’s strongmen. At this point one of the “good guys” in the story says to her “Why did you go to war with Jeanine, if you were just going to become her?”
I think of this scene almost every time I see the supposed defenders if democracy railing about throwing everyone in jail.
Thank you.
This is such a brilliant and well reasoned piece.
I feel like I just got a ten-minute reprieve from Reactorville.
One thing to keep in mind is how long this marathon is going to be. It took ~1.5 years from the time the Manhattan DA indicted Trump’s corporate person to when a jury found it guilty. So, we could be watching the conventions next summer while Trump’s trial is being held. Won’t that be fun!
As long as that seems, it’s a heck of a lot shorter than E Jean Carroll’s lawsuit. She was defamed in 2019 & here we are, 5 years later & it’s just going to trial (4/25/23). This partly shows the point you make, Teri, that criminal cases proceed faster than civil cases. But also, at least 2 years of that was delay while Trump had the protection of the presidency. He no longer enjoys that.
Excellent point. on a heartening note, many many lawsuits can take 10 years. So these are bounding right along.
Still… has anyone seen my DeLorean?
Thank you for your analysis.One of the most interesting and disturbing things to me is that online, extremist right-wing propaganda includes a violent narrative of what the legal/judicial system might look like under an authoritarian regime.
Pro-Trump propaganda includes a narrative that once Trump is installed as strongman/dictator, “traitors” will be rounded up, forced to confess in televised tribunals streamed 24/7 on all channels that the state takes over, and publicly executed if they don’t confess to being traitors. The same treatment for people suspected of any range of crimes.
Compare this to the hysteria Trump is trying to gin up about his own indictment. The legal system that allows Trump a fair trial, that takes a long time because the legal process should not be rushed or careless. Our democracy ensures that people are not rounded up by paramilitary thugs, forced to confess under duress, followed by a quick execution.
Trump has benefited – and will continue to benefit – from the very legal system that he now seeks to destroy.
Yes.
Consider this, though: Trump doesn’t think he is benefitting. He thinks he is the victim of a legal system gone mad. If you consider the fact that he wants to go back to 1930 when very little of what he did would be considered a crime, it makes sense.
Problem is people far more intelligent than Trump understand the process and use Trump as their lightning rod. If he dropped off the face of the earth, the real reactionary power brokers would still be there, stoking the flames. Maybe we need more attention given to the $$$ people behind much of this.
Do you think he doesn’t think he is benefitting or is he engaged in his usual bullying tactics? He’s the most litigious president in US history, I believe. So he’s been engaged with the legal system all of his adult life.
It’s ironic I suppose, though hardly surprising, that the “law and order” GOP is so thoroughly pro-accused-criminal in this case.
It’s a big topic, but I do find it striking how Trump has flipped the GOP from everything it was known for in the decades I was growing up, the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The GOP were the sober business types; now they are the party of deficits, unemployment and rejecting free trade. They were the party of “law and order”. Now they support criminals, as long as those criminals oppose the fair elections our society is based on.
I consider it a measure of Trump’s great talent as a con man and marketer that he saw the opportunity that was open to him to lead the GOP in this change. If I’m right, it follows from that point that his moment was fleeting. He has never been broadly popular and is even less so now. He had his moment but now it’s over.
I’ve always, well, since the ‘90s, seen the GOP stance as a front for keeping the plutocrats in power. Truth and justice are generally against them so they use deception and appeal to our less admirable traits. Don’t fall for their assertion they stand for something like “character”. Holding this view helps me make sense of the GOP “transformation”. (It was not a transformation).
That said, I do feel betrayal. I thought conservatives were offering an intellectually honest counterpoint. They were not. Well some were, but many not.
“Law and order” was always a very thin smokescreen. The first Republican president to campaign on it was Nixon, for Christ’s sake.
Deficits have a similar history of Republican lip service. Both Reagan and Bush the Lesser campaigned as deficit hawks while actively and openly supporting deficit expansions that turned out to be ruinous. The only presidents who’ve balanced the budget or even reduced the deficit in the last 40 years have been Democrats.
Another fantastic blog that I wish would be discussed on every news show on every channel. Or at least with Rachel Maddow.
Your posts never disapppoint, Teri. I also read a post last evening—someone urging us to demand that our mainstream media cover actual news that we need to stay informed about (no shortage of that) and not spend all their airtime on Trump. We need to just let the justice system work—we don’t need morning to night speculation.
Pre-trial detention would be shocking to me, in New York, for a guy who is not personally & immediately dangerous. (I know he’s dangerous in other ways, but he isn’t going to walk *himself* up to Alvin Bragg & attack him.) A gag order tho – that would be perfect, because there’s no way he would abide by it.
Wait, what would even happen, if the judge issued a gag order & trump kept on low-rent tweeting about the case?
I was expecting something more in-depth about the arrest or the process but this was so informative! Thank you for always educating me.
I have so much to say to this, thank you for one
You have put into words exactly how I feel. As a Democrat, I’m so relieved that Biden hasn’t taken the bait. As much as I want to see justice for T#@mP (can’t say it’s name) I’m relieved we are following the rule of law in its entirety, no matter how slow, it’s the right thing to do and the American way. We would just be falling into the abyss if we acted like the GOP. It makes so much sense to me now, why the outrage. Their very existence is threatened. I’ve often wondered why so much support for it (t@#?) Now after reading this. I get it 100% we do live in completely different worlds. I for one cannot wait till the boomer generation is over!
I’m sorry…exactly what do you feel is wrong with the boomer generation??? You can’t just make a statement like that and not explain yourself.
Although, unfortunately, many of those who have voted for TFG are older folks, a great, GREAT many of us who are considered boomers are implacably against him and everything he stands for! I was born in 1960, so a tail-end boomer, and my husband was born in 1951. (My mother, a Greatest-Gen-er born in 1924, absolutely could not abide him either. She was nice to a fault, but she spoke seethingly of him. She died two days after his inauguration so did not have to endure his presidency.)
What I really can’t figure out is the young ones who are driving the far right. What’s in it for them exactly? Sheer white supremacy power? Or perhaps, as Teri implies, a belief that democracy will never work for them? Or maybe just a desire for their moment of social media fame and fortune?
Hello mrs. Kanefield,
I tried following you on Twitter as I found this article a refreshing objective view on this matter.
However it seems you have me blocked. I do not recall us ever interacting, let alone in a negative way, would you please consider unblocking me so I can follow you?
Certainly. what is your handle? (I am not on Twitter much anymore)
Again, thank you for your time and energy. Your insights and analysis are helpful for me in understanding this chaos.
As always, you are a voice of reason. Yes, sometimes reason annoys me when I’m being overly emotional (read: ANGRY). But, I always appreciate what I read from you even when I am annoyed. 🙂
Thank you so much for the continual reminder that our democratic and justice system is working and will continue to work until we see DJT’s cases through. It’s easy to feel angry about all the damage he and his supporters have done, and wish for a super hero to come in and “wham! crash! oof!” him to justice, but that only happens in the comics.
I don’t know what the result will be. I make no promises.
I just know that if people start fighting authoritarianism with more authoritarianism democracy will be lost.
Dear Teri, Thanks again for helping us maintain sanity and reason. Trump is in his element, playing victim and grifting his base and enlisting his flunkies, like Lindsay Graham, to grift his base. I understand he has raked in millions for his “defense” from his supporters. Think what that money could buy on earth one….Food and housing for the homeless and storm victims.. but oh well. Actually, I blame my fellow citizen for being so gullible and voting for this nut. He is like flypaper, we may never be able to get him off…
Terrific post, as always, Teri. A couple thoughts/questions:
1)In terms of Lindsay Graham (and maybe a few other Republicans) isn’t it possible that two thing are true? What I mean is yes, they’re reactionaries & authoritarians, AND when Putin had his people hack the DNC, he also had them hack the RNC. So they agree with Trump’s aims, AND they are legitimately scared of some dirt he has on them (Graham in particular comes to mind here).
2)How do indictments work in the sense of how do you count them? I heard there could be 4 indictments total against Trump, and I thought it would only be 3 (New York, Georgia, and DOJ’s case). And case #4, the DOJ one, would have multiple counts, such that charges re: Jan 6, charges re: the stolen docs, and charges re: fake electors would be the counts – not that those matters would be separate charges. Why wouldn’t the federal crimes just be one indictment with multiple counts?
What dirt can there be? Paying off a porn star? There is no dirt other than the fact that they have probably worked with Putin, but that brings us back to the same place: They support Trump because they are reactionaries. There is no evidence of blackmail and it makes no sense.
We will know the charges when we see the indictment 🙂
Because of your posts, I keep the phrase “Rage sells” in mind whenever I’m tempted to click on something like: “MJT gets destroyed by (fill in any name here).”
Thank you Teri!
Fair.
I will likely come back to the other question, as you say, when we see what, if anything, DOJ charges him with.
Graham is jumping to attach itself with the bigger shark right now, he will ditch Trump, and even turn 180 degrees if necesseary if someone else will come along…
Okay, Teri, the solution is not to take the bait. Got it. I’m going to hold on to that this time. P.S. My husband loves your book.
Yes, I find it hilarious that the reactionaries are attacking the indictment sight unseen. None of us know what the charges are, much less the prosecution’s theory of the case. They just don’t like their Dear Leader being held to account.
My own speculation: I assume the DA thought long and hard before bringing this case, and would not do so unless he believes he has reason to think that he can prove at least some felony charges to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He does NOT want to embarrassed on such a high profile case. I will be very interested to read what you have to say about the indictment once it is made public.
Moreover, while understanding that Trump has seemingly done worse things than falsify business records, my guess is that DA Bragg went first because his office has been investigating Trump for years and has had time to compile the evidence. Prosecutors such as Fani Willis and Jack Smith have had less time to investigate their cases. I would like to think that in this case the simplest explanation is best.
This particular investigation started in 2018. The DOJ and Georgia investigations started in 2021. Yes, also if they get him for falsifying business records, it’s a bit easier to prove than what the DOJ and Georgia DA are investigating.
Modulo all the secondary charges that enhance that business records charge into a felony. We don’t know how big a bite Bragg has taken. Somewhere between 2 and 30-odd bites. (We know at least 2 because an official letter referred to “charges”, plural.)
So many Republican elected officials willingly make asses of themselves and toe the MAGA line whenever Trump is caught out in outrageous and alleged criminal conduct. Is Sen. Mitt Romney the sole non-MAGA-Republican who is still active in Congress?
The vast majority of Republicans obviously kow-tow to Trump out of base political expediency. Could it also be they believe Trump, if POed due to lack of support, will wreak revenge by running as an Independent in 2024? And that if he were to do so, the Republican Party would go the way of the Whigs, the diplodocus and the pterodactyl?
No word from J.J.
I was so tired when I finished writing this, I didn’t even have the.energy to ask him to make a statement.
Really: thank you for all your efforts!
TFG’s rants are dangerous. He is feeding the paranoia that the GOP has sown in their voters. The politicians defending him are destabilizing our country. And by repeating his lies, they also raise the temperature and increase the risk.
I understand the difficulty in holding him accountable for his words; it’s all open to interpretation. But do we have to wait for another deadly incident before someone can legally shut him the f up?
Thank you.
I suspect that any threats he is making against the prosecutor will make his criminal case worse. Not that this will stop him.
I think Graham’s comment was more focused on the (DA?) trend to let 1st (& 2nd. & 3rd…) offenders off or out for a variety of steadily escalating crimes – partly due to the pandemic, partly due to overloaded police depts & judicial systems, partly as a misguided idea that compassion will appease reprobates or not lead to organized gangs taking advantage of tolerance.
So that breaking a window or stealing something from CVS would mean less than a slap on the wrist/”go now & sin no more” warning (if even).
Yes, it’s “whataboutism”, but “he punched out a female Asian shopkeeper and was back on the street that afternoon” does tend to lower the law & order concerns about “just some documents”. These guys have been messaging a long time – they know what they’re doing.