31st March 2023
Another “-ment’.
Following his two impeach-ments, former President Donald Trump now has an indict-ment.
(There is a pleasing parallel to this, as impeachment was the quasi-judicial process which our ancestors provided for dealing with errant politicians instead of having trials on an indictment.)
But just as a cover is not the book, an indictment is not a conviction.
It is instead the start of another process – and Trump has spent a good part of his life gaming and otherwise manipulating processes, both formal and informal.
This is the essence of the book ghost-written in his name, The Art of the Deal.
In that book, the title’s artfulness is about how negotiation processes can be exploited, how leverages can be gained, how opportunities and advantages are created and taken.
*
It is almost as if all his career Trump has merely been preparing for dealing with an indictment in the state of New York.
But.
Some sports are more dangerous than others, and some sports are very dangerous indeed.
And so are some processes, and if Trump puts a foot wrong in his engagement with this process then he faces a criminal record and incarceration.
Of course: Trump may, in turn, game and exploit that eventuality, and appeal to his constituency as a victim and so will emerge somehow as a winner from all this.
The criminal process will take place within a wider political-social-media game which Trump will seek to play.
*
I am not an American lawyer, and the actual charges for Trump are not yet clear, but it seems that they will be in respect of false accounting.
If so, the offence will not be the payment of any hush money directly, but how that payment was accounted for in the books.
And if this offence requires proof of intent, as well as the facts of the misleading or incorrect accounts, then it may not be straightforward to prove.
Absent a confession or a blatantly false statement, it is often difficult to prove fraud in respect of record-keeping.
Trump will know this, and so will his lawyers – and so will the prosecutors.
For just as Trump will be careful not to put a foot wrong, so will the prosecutors.
And as this is a criminal matter, due process and fundamental rights are on the side of Trump.
(If only all criminal defendants could be as lawyered-up and protected.)
So, yes, the indictment is novel and significant – but so were the two impeachments.
The result of this process is therefore not a foregone conclusion – for either Trump or the prosecutors.
And so both sides now will face their hardest tests.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
..although ultimately the impeachments were a (party) political process and were always a foregone conclusion. A jury trial may have elements of political theatre but will be much less easy to manipulate.
Trump is arrogant, short-tempered, hyper-aggressive and over-confident. It will be extraordinarily difficult for his defence team to get him to follow the track they think is in his best interests. He might well condemn himself by unwise tweets and direct comments to the media and court (if he insists on speaking in his defence).
And maybe this is another example in public life of where the “heinous” act might have gone unnoticed, or at least been ignored if there had been no attempt at cover-up.
There is a law that restricts political candidates’ freedom in dealing with campaign expenditure.
One of the arguments with the Stormy Daniels payment is that it was made during the course of his presidential campaign in order to kill a story that could have affected his prospects of success in the election. But he did not include the payments on his declaration of campaign finances.
It may be this law on which he will be convicted. New York state is pursuing him because at the time he claimed to be living – for what purpose I cannot recall – in New York even though he did almost all of his ‘living’ in Mar-a-lago. (Or is it the other way around? I can’t keep track.)
“For just as Trump will be careful not to put a foot wrong, so will the prosecutors.”
Hasn’t Trump demonstrated many times that he, either carelessly or intentionally, puts a foot wrong but somehow escapes. Is he about to reach his limit?
No doubt there will be more posts on this story.
I do wonder how they will find a panel of unbiased people, who have not prejudged the case or the man, to sit on the jury.
It may well turn out that the “hush” money could be considered as an Election Contribution since it was paid to keep Ms Daniels quiet during the 2016 Presidential Election and as such it might be considered a contribution, but was not declared as such.