Former President Trump announced over the weekend that he expected to be arrested this coming Tuesday, calling on his supporters to protest the development and "take our nation back." His office later clarified that Trump didn't have any specific knowledge about the timing of any imminent arrest, claiming that his Truth Social posts were simply "rightfully highlighting his innocence and the weaponization of our injustice system." An indictment is widely expected, however, and former prosecutors I've spoken to tell me the fact pattern playing out strongly suggests that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office is, indeed, moving in that direction. The editors of the Wall Street Journal made some salient points on this front last week:
Falsifying business records is typically a misdemeanor in New York. To become a felony, prosecutors would have to prove the books were cooked with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” In Mr. Trump’s case, what is this second crime? The suggestion in the press is Mr. Bragg might say it’s a campaign-finance violation...An elected Democratic prosecutor is going to indict a Republican former President and 2024 contender, alleging a felony that could put him in prison, and it would boil down to a campaign-finance violation? That would be some precedent. To the public, it would sound as if Mr. Bragg is scrambling to come up with a legal theory to fit a target he had already decided he wanted to charge...And did Mr. Trump have “intent” to breach campaign-finance law? Even the New York Times, which threw fairness out the window during the Trump years, reports that, “The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony.”
A convoluted legal bank-shot of a prosecution, relying on an "untested" and "risky" legal theory, is no way to go about something of this gravity. Nobody is above the law, Trump included, and we haven't yet seen the entirety of whatever case Bragg's office may bring against him. But it's worth noting that the feds looked at this same evidence and made the prudential judgment not to charge Trump. For a partisan, elected DA in a very progressive city to go down this path will strike many Americans as plainly, highly political because it would be plainly, highly political. And it would be especially rich coming from Bragg, who is perhaps best known for downgrading felony charges -- including for violent offenses -- rather than conjuring up excuses to do the opposite. Here's a relevant report from late 2022:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has downgraded more than half of his felony cases to misdemeanors as crime continues to escalate in the Big Apple. Since taking office on January 1, the soft-on-crime DA has downgraded 52 percent of felony cases to misdemeanors compared to 39 percent in all of 2019, according to data published on the DA's website...Bragg, who campaigned last year on a promise of criminal justice reform, issued a controversial 'Day One' memo after taking office stating he would only seek prison time in the most severe cases. That same month, career criminal William Rolon, who faced only misdemeanor charges for threatening a store worker with a knife, was told by a judge that he should 'feel lucky' because of Bragg's new policies. Violent crime in the Big Apple has soared by nearly 30 percent from last year.
Want some examples? Alvin Bragg gave a misdemeanor to a man who committed an anti-Semitic assault in Times Square, to a man who robbed a drug store at knifepoint, and to a man with 36 priors charged with grand larceny who proceeded to assault a woman on the street. pic.twitter.com/gcXISVBbWd
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 18, 2023
It is entirely consistent to believe (a) that Trump brought the Stormy Daniels ordeal upon himself, (b) that Trump is lying about the affair, and also (c) that Bragg's reportedly-likely prosecution of him is politicized garbage. Politically speaking, I suspect this episode could result in a 'rally around the flag' effect among Republican voters (as we saw after the Mar-a-Lago raid), who will see this as yet another left-wing witch hunt against the former president. Trump's support may surge or consolidate as a consequence -- at least for awhile -- bolstering his standing in the 2024 primary race. Democrats have not been shy about admitting or telegraphing their desire to run against Trump again, so in that context, a Trump indictment and arrest might be seen as something of a win-win, from their perspective. Many within the 'Resistance' base have wanted to see Trump incarcerated since the moment he won in 2016, so any movement in that direction will fill them with spiteful glee, even if the charges don't stick. A prosecution, no matter how flimsy, will scratch an intense itch these people have experienced for years, having been routinely informed by their media echo chamber that the 'walls were finally closing in' on the object of their hatred.
But if it also has the knock-on effect of galvanizing GOP support for the man they're confident they can beat again at the ballot box, all the better. Democrats look at the results of the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections and reasonably conclude that Trump as the face of their opposition is helpful to their electoral prospects, so if a member of their tribe is going to abuse his office in order to satisfy the base, while simultaneously further cleaving the Republican base to Trump, all the better. The whole thing looks outrageously political and cynical -- and it's not Trumpist hackery to say so. I'll leave you with my comments on the latest revelations about the Biden family enrichment enterprise, as well as the president's non-credible blanket denial:
Biden’s latest denial comes with no credibility: pic.twitter.com/vapc5dsGtq
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) March 19, 2023
Nobody should believe a word Biden says on this subject, for reasons I laid out in the clip. His default setting is issuing a categorical denial, followed by counting on the press to ignore counter-evidence -- or at least burying the story long enough for its electoral potency to subside.
