My job is to synthesize political developments and analyze them. I'll confess that right now, I'm at a loss. We've encountered countless highly unusual or unprecedented moments in our politics over the last eight years or so -- but this one is unlike anything we've ever witnessed. Quite literally. A former President of the United States, and a current leading contender for the presidency, has been convicted of 34 felonies by a New York jury. The 'crimes' in question were internal corporate bookkeeping mis-categorizations 'committed' nine years ago. There was no victim in these bookkeeping mis-categorizations, which were subsequently deemed records falsifications. Misdemeanors. They stemmed from a sexual encounter Donald Trump had with a porn star, which he sought to cover up via a nondisclosure agreement. The woman was paid six figures to abide by the agreement. The money was furnished to her by Trump's sleazy personal lawyer. Trump then reimbursed said sleazy lawyer over a period of time. This is all very sordid business. None of it was criminal. Those reimbursement payments were categorized as legal fees, as selected from a pre-populated drop-down menu embedded in the company's software. They were not listed as "hush money payments to a porn star."
According to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a hardcore anti-Trump partisan who campaigned as such, that constituted a crime. Others disagreed. Bragg's predecessor in that office looked at the same facts and chose not to pursue a case. The federal Department of Justice looked at the same facts and chose not to pursue a case. The Federal Elections Commission looked at the possibility that these actions represented a campaign finance violation, and chose not to pursue even a civil case or a fine. But Bragg exploited his authority -- usually reserved in his worldview for downgrading charges, including for violent crimes -- to charge these long-ago misdemeanor-at-worst acts as felonies. Why not stick with misdemeanor charges (which are rarely prosecuted by Bragg)? Because those statutes of limitations expired in 2019. To make a case viable during this election cycle, which I believe has been the entire point from the beginning, they had to be felonies. So Bragg invented what even the New York Times acknowledged as a never-before-attempted legal theory under which the bookkeeping mis-categorizations were part of a conspiracy that involved another crime. That turned them into felonies under this strained, untested bank shot.
Ultimately, the judge in the case -- who donated to his defendant's political opponent in their last election match-up -- told the Manhattan jury that they could select from a menu of three options that could be considered the critical, felony-creating 'other crime.' These options were not adjudicated at trial, let alone proven. They weren't spelled out in the indictment. The defense was not able to defend against them. Attempts at educating the jury on the most likely of the options were barred by the Biden donor judge. A top expert's highly-relevant testimony was preemptively disallowed, and therefore never heard. One of the prosecutors in the courtroom joined Bragg's legal team from President Biden's Justice Department, where he'd been serving as the third highest-ranking official. He quit and became an assistant in a local DA's office, which is unheard of. This man, who was paid thousands of dollars for political consulting by the Democratic National Committee during Trump's presidency, clearly had a very specific objective in mind. Days before Trump's conviction, his electoral opponent's team held a campaign event at the courthouse. These facts -- in isolation, and especially taken together -- are breathtaking.
Whether one wants to call this a 'rigged' trial, or simply observe that the deck was stacked against Trump in astonishing ways, is a rhetorical matter. Smart legal minds from across the spectrum seem to agree that there are ample grounds for 'reversible error' appeals, on multiple fronts. But in some important ways, that's beside the point. The goal here, as I see it, has been to emblazon 'convicted felon' across Donald Trump's forehead prior to the election, then repeat those two words endlessly until November. If the conviction gets thrown out on appeal down the line, as is likely, so what? The charges were political, the trial was political, and the result was orchestrated to achieve a political result. This is undeniable, in my view, and is therefore deeply disturbing. This is a major abuse of the criminal justice system. As I've written previously, if a former president (and current major candidate) is to be criminally prosecuted for the first time in our nation's history, the case against him ought to be crystal clear. The legal theory underpinning said case should be well-tested and extremely familiar. The alleged violations should be grave. This unfolding scenario goes 0-for-3 on those points. A disgrace.
I have found Donald Trump to be a volatile, capricious, myopic, petty man for as long as I've been aware of his existence. I have voted against him in two presidential primaries (and would have a third time if my state's Republican Party hadn't canceled its nominating contest in 2020, in obsequious deference to the incumbent). I have voted against him (third party/write-in) in two general elections. My full intention has been to do so again this November, despite my deep opposition to the governance of the Biden administration. Biden has been a far worse president than I'd expected, and my expectations were low. The reason I've been planning to nevertheless vote for someone other than Donald Trump once again is that he has always been fundamentally unfit for high office, in my opinion. Many disagree, and I respect that difference of opinion. But that was, and is, my assessment, even as I supported many of the positive outcomes he achieved during his presidential term. In terms of governing results, he was a better president than I'd expected. After the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, for which I hold Trump principally responsible, I called his conduct impeachable and wrote that the GOP would be "demented" to nominate Trump again. The party's voters proceeded to do so this year. That is their prerogative, just as it is mine to have urged against it, to have voted against it, and to decline to go along with it again this fall.
But for the first time, I am seriously reconsidering my planned choice. I am now strongly entertaining the possibility of voting for Trump. I stand behind, and still believe, every single thing I wrote in the preceding paragraph. What I'm grappling with now is whether the appalling lawfare so brazenly employed against Trump in this case is more dangerous than anything Trump, and his worst excesses, represent. To be clear, I don't believe Trump is "above the law." I've written about how the federal classified documents and obstruction case against him is well-grounded in evidence. Yes, I also think the lack of charges against the last two Democratic presidential nominees for similar or identical categories of crimes are a real problem, as it pertains to the even-handed application of laws to politicians at the highest level. For what it's worth, I think Trump's classified materials conduct, and his attempted interference in that investigation, are worse than the related and illegal acts over which Joe Biden was not charged. I think Trump's actions are roughly on par with Hillary Clinton's criminal actions on this front, for which she was also not charged. Hers were arguably worse, actually, because it's much more likely they endangered national security via hacking. She also engaged in a consequence-free cover-up, replete with multiple flagrant lies and the destruction of evidence.
If Trump's documents and obstruction case had been first in the queue, I'd still have made all of those points, which are aboutist, not whataboutist. But I'd have also conceded that what he did was clearly illegal, under black-and-white statutes, and that the cover-up portion of the alleged crime was additionally incriminating. It might be a different sort of injustice for Trump to be convicted in that case, given the fact patterns and double standards at play, but it would not be a legal travesty. The New York case is a legal travesty. A bare-knuckled partisan prosecutor in a deep blue jurisdiction teamed up with a partisan, provably anti-Trump judge to concoct a brand new, alchemized legal theory to invent felonies against their party's chief political opponent. They then slanted the trial proceedings so dramatically as to virtually assure a conviction, including foreclosing various compelling defenses (Trump may have foolishly aided their task by handcuffing his own lawyers in key ways, but that's a separate story). They did things that numerous veteran lawyers have literally never seen before in a court of law, over decades of practice. These people conjured a multi-count felony conviction, potentially carrying more than 100 years of prison time, out of a handful of internal, victimless corporate records mis-categorizations from nearly a decade ago -- surrounding highly unseemly, but not illegal, behavior.
This is all very unhealthy for our already-strained civic health. If Trump loses in November, tens of millions of Americans will believe the race was effectively stolen from him. Unlike last time, they might have a point. For Trump's opponents, this ghastly approach will have 'worked,' a corrosive lesson. If he wins despite the trial result, tens of millions of Americans will have their faith in our system eroded or shattered. How could our fellow citizens have elected a convicted felon? The 'resistance' will re-emerge with a vengeance, and that V-word may well dominate much of Trump's governing mentality, given what his opponents have put him through -- both with the Russia "collusion" hoax, and now this. This is as dirty as dirty politics get, even it the target is an unsympathetic figure to so many. It cannot be rewarded. It must be punished, in fact. And perhaps the only real, painful way to punish it is to elect Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States. I do fear some of what a second Trump term might look like, particularly under these circumstances. Furthermore, this horrible situation does not 'undo' or 'cancel out' the national disgrace of January 6th. And Trump is still, in my mind, fundamentally unfit. But, again, for the first time, I am truly considering voting for him anyway, something I never thought I'd really contemplate. The abuses unleashed in the name of 'resisting' him (Russia collusion, laptop conspiracy, and this just-concluded lawfare sham are strikes one, two, and three) are arguably as dangerous, or more dangerous, than anything he's done. So here we are.
I realize that scores of readers will scoff at this piece. So be it. I strive to be transparent and honest in my commentary, which isn't always a fast track to popularity. Many Trump fans will roll their eyes at my deserved and pointed criticisms of their hero. They don't believe this should be a close call, especially for someone who is right-of-center. Fair enough, but I disagree. Many Trump opponents will roll their eyes at what they'll see as performative anguish from a conservative commentator who's simply found his excuse to support their loathed bete noir -- and after both January 6th and felony convictions, no less. They don't believe this should be a close call, especially for someone who has already eschewed previous opportunities to vote for him. Fair enough, again, but I disagree. Both sides do seem to agree the country is in serious peril -- and is poised to enter even more dire straits, depending on November's outcome. Both sides fervently and increasingly believe that the other poses an existential threat to our system itself. That our 'democracy' is truly at stake. A general sense of national spiraling in recent years will be confirmed, and accelerated, for huge groups of people following this trial and the subsequent election. It's unsettling, It's sad. It feels dangerous.
I know this isn't about me, but it is about a lot of people like me. I'm confident there are many Americans who feel the way I do right now, or for whom at least some of this resonates. They face an unpleasant-to-excruciating choice this fall, and they resent the two major parties for cornering them into it. The so-called 'double-disapprovers' (who disapprove of both Biden and Trump) will be a, or the, determinative demographic in this election. There are surely some 'swing' voters who will recoil from a convicted felon, even if they were perhaps leaning in his direction prior to the verdict. Others will come off the sidelines for Trump, out of deep indignation of the banana republic-style abomination of a political show trial that just concluded in one of the country's most lopsidedly partisan jurisdictions. How will these dynamics shake out over the next few days, weeks, and months? Some polling suggests it could all be a relative non-event for voters, net-net. But perhaps the stark reality of it, rather than the hypothetical nature of it, will change that. There are several plausible scenarios -- from Trump negative, to Trump positive, to neutral. I just don't know, and I'm skeptical of confident predictions about if and how public opinion will move. I don't even know what I'm going to do -- personally. So I'll leave you with what I posted after taking in the verdict last evening, having recently covered a separate, ludicrous, institution-assaulting left-wing faux 'controversy' around this very symbol:
This isn't a sign of solidarity with Donald Trump, The Martyr. It's a sign of profound national distress. I love our country, and I don't think it's melodramatic to believe -- or to say out loud -- that it is in trouble. None of the possible outcomes here seem likely to be particularly redeeming or hopeful. Optimism has its limits, anger can quickly become a counter-productive cul-de-sac, and despair isn't a very American option. So I'll pray, then do my best to make a good choice, along with millions of others who feel politically adrift. My job is to synthesize political developments and analyze them. I'll confess that right now, I'm at a loss.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member