Former President Donald Trump continues to make presidential history in the most unsavory, headline-capturing fashion. Formally indicted and arraigned, Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts. All charges are attributed to falsifying business records in the first degree in relation to a hush-money payment of $130,000 made to porn star Stormy Daniels to not disclose her alleged 2007 affair with the former president during the 2016 presidential election.
The Statement of Facts reads, “The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”
In his announcement of Trump’s indictment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg asserted, “At its core, this case today is one with allegations like so many of our white-collar cases … allegations that someone lied, again and again, to protect their interests and evade the laws to which we are all held accountable.”
The criminality of the case rests on how Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen was compensated for executing the hush-money payments to Daniels, actions that allegedly took place while Trump was president in 2017. Cohen was convicted of campaign finance charges related to the payments to Daniels in 2018 and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Trump pleaded not guilty on all counts and maintains his innocence.
That one is innocent until proven guilty is a sacrosanct principle in our democracy. However, my analysis of this case and unfortunate exposure to Trump’s unceasing presence has led me to believe the former president is guilty of the crimes he has been accused of and charged with.
Despite my presumption of Trump’s guilt, this particular indictment is harmful to the infrastructure of American politics and the judicial system and initiates a dangerous precedent of indicting former presidents after their stint in the Oval.
The indictment strengthens Trump’s path to the GOP nomination
Of course, the only person on the planet an indictment could help would be Donald Trump; his path to victory in 2016 and presidency validates this assertion. On the debate stage and in numerous rallies, White House press conferences and Oval Office conversations, Trump verbally bullied political opponents and allies alike; espoused lewd, misogynistic remarks directed toward women and publicly mocked a disabled reporter. I could of course go on, but to disclose all of Trump’s offensive remarks and actions would require this piece to be the length of an honor’s thesis, and quite frankly, I want to be able to sleep at night.
The cult of personality that is Trump benefits from the brazen, callous, lambasting and cruel rhetoric and behavior that helped him capture the presidency in 2016, coupled with the perpetual media attention cast in his direction. If such crude, unprecedented behavior did not hinder his path to victory in 2016, why should we expect an indictment to do so for his 2024 prospects?
The Trump campaign has raised $7 million since the announcement of his indictment, and his staunchest political rivals have publicly offered him support. Former South Carolina Governor and current contender for the 2024 GOP nomination Nikki Haley tweeted, “This is more about revenge than it is justice,” literally demonstrating support for her political opponent. Potential 2024 contenders, including Former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, offered similar remarks, slamming the indictment as a weaponization of the legal system. DeSantis went as far as writing that he would “not assist in an extradition request.” This support only further consolidates Trump’s base and extends his lead and image over the rest of the 2024 field.
Similar to 2016, Trump’s indictment has received an incredulous amount of media attention. Courtroom photos at arraignment have dominated headlines and pervaded our screens. News coverage literally depicted Trump’s plane takeoff and arrival in Florida and New York, including his post-arraignment remarks at Mar-a-Lago. Trump thrives on the stage that is political theater and has undoubtedly made the most of his indictment. To Trump, the word “indictment” reads “opportunity.” Trump has now been provided a prominent platform to label our judicial system as fraudulent and the charges against him as political and illegitimate, with the ability to cast judges, district attorneys and lawmakers of the opposing party as vengeful characters in a plot to jail political opponents. He can now brand and sell himself effectively as a political martyr.
If Trump secured the GOP nomination, he would be defeated in the general election. However, if 2016 taught us anything, I’d rather not take any chances.
This particular case against Trump is weak
The tragedy is that Trump is reaping such immense political gains from a weak attempt to hold him accountable for his criminal activity.
This is the weakest of the potential cases that can be brought against Trump when considering his incitement of the violence and chaos that consumed Jan. 6, or the smoking gun of violating Georgia election law following the 2020 Presidential Election, asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to find “11,780 votes.” These cases should be the focus of his criminality, not his alleged illicit efforts to maintain the privacy of an affair. Legal experts and Trump critics alike have raised skepticism and concerns about Bragg’s case against Trump, who had been encouraged to not pursue an indictment from figures on both sides of the aisle. The skepticism focuses on the delay of bringing charges on a case that seemed to be left for dead months ago, his outlined theories fragile and having dubiously elevated the “falsification of business records” from misdemeanors to felonies. This is a challenging case to try, and a guilty verdict is unlikely.
In an interview with Politico, Richard Hasen, a campaign finance law expert at UCLA, said, “It is said that if you go after the King, you should not miss. In this vein, it is very easy to see this case tossed for legal insufficiency or tied up in the courts well past the 2024 election before it might ever go to trial. It will be a circus that will embolden Trump, especially if he walks.”
Moreover, should Trump face further indictments in relation to Jan. 6 and election interference, the Manhattan indictment dilutes the significance of such charges as merely additional political efforts to imprison him.
While it can be debated as to whether or not this particular indictment is politically motivated, the majority of the country sees it that way. A Quinnipiac poll revealed that while a majority of Americans approve of the indictment, 62% believed it was motivated by politics.
Thus, not only is this a weak case, but it appears political to most Americans. This hands Trump an effortless political victory, erodes trust in our institutions and the presidency and exacerbates our polarization in the process.
This indictment threatens the creation of a dangerous precedent
It should go without saying that our laws must extend to our nation’s leaders, as it is crucial to ensure safeguards and measures are in place to disincentivize or prevent our leaders from committing various crimes. Furthermore, Trump is an abnormal and unprecedented figure who certainly requires an abnormal and unprecedented response. Nonetheless, we must objectively calculate how this particular indictment, albeit a weak one, can affect the overarching future of presidential politics.
Indicting former presidents can devolve into a slippery slope. After President Biden leaves office, could he be charged in connection with his son Hunter’s questionable and nefarious behavior? What of former President Bill Clinton? It is certainly possible there are numerous intimate, political and financial skeletons in his closet. Could he be charged? Might the office of the presidency, which is already under the world’s greatest microscope, be formally reduced to capturing any misstep and using it to impeach and indict a president?
I also fear how the threat of indictments could be used in presidential elections, whereas an incumbent president could potentially arrange for the indictment of a prominent political opponent, or vice versa. Introducing the courts into elections and onto the debate stage is the stuff of failing democracies and authoritarian regimes.
The political elements at play in this indictment can be debated. What cannot be debated is that should presidential indictments become an established precedent, they will undoubtedly be used as a political weapon. Our contemporary reality of heightened political, social and cultural partisanship only strengthens this possibility.
No individual or entity is above the law and there must be accountability and justice when a crime is committed. Regardless of any potential political or personal motives at play in this indictment, if Trump committed a crime, he should be charged; I only argue that the implications of this indictment far outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. I wish American presidents were not above the law, but history has proven to us otherwise.
Thus, we cannot allow Donald Trump to further desecrate and tarnish the office of the presidency by stimulating his political capital, handing him a megaphone and rebuilding and legitimizing his platform that we have worked so hard to exile from our mind-space and country. The best thing for the United States within this decade would be the eradication of Trump’s political prospects and his disappearance from American politics altogether. The most productive way to achieve this is through the ballot box, not in court or on television.
