The case to indict: Consequences of letting Trump off are far worse than the alternative…
Photo by Erik McGregor/Sipa USA.
OUR HAMLET COMPLEX
To indict or not to indict for some has become the question. Concerns over consequences if Donald Trump is finally held accountable for his crimes muddles the question. Trump and his followers don’t really care whether the DOJ decides to indict or not. Their grievance-laden angst can’t be satisfied. Timidity in applying the law will only invite more lawlessness. Indecision is to decide. We are already living with the consequence we seek to avoid. As Merrick Garland has stated, no one is above the law, not even Trump. Evidence, not prosecutorial uncertainty, should determine if a case is brought to court. In this case, the evidence is credible and mounting. Six in ten Americans are convinced that Trump has broken laws and want him held accountable. The dread inspired by an indictment should be felt by the defendant — proof is the burden borne by prosecutors who should be fearless. In Trump’s case, the proof seems an easy burden because his crimes are so obvious, so apparent. From the obstructions named but uncharged in the Mueller probe to the fake electors and coup attempt on January 6 Trump has evaded censure by extending his breach of norms, committing additional crimes to cover up previous criminal acts, and using the presidency as a shield from justice.
Part of Trump’s “art” is his dedication to an amoral lifestyle that is devoid of conscience. The narcissism he is often charged with by critics has served him well. He cares about no one and nothing but himself. His administration and its afterlife are reminiscent of how the mob operates. Loyalty is a commodity and the price of speaking one’s mind is highly overrated. The boss is loyal until it no longer suits him. Trump sheds allies like dandruff and replaces them with newer, younger, and more subservient fluff. In the meantime, he consorts with criminal types like himself. His gang of craven losers acts as capos to his “Don”. The list of appointments to Trump’s Cabinet positions is awash with sycophants and the willingly shameless, while his closest associates have the stink of corruption about them — cue John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Kash Patel, Sidney Powell, et.al.
THE FAWN RESPONSE
The primary requirement for those who remained with Trump at the end of his term and beyond has been their willingness to fawn over and toady to his whim. Competence and integrity are luxuries Trump doesn’t choose to afford. Their fawning codependency can be reciprocating, or like the base, delusional:
Though the fawn response is initially an attempt at survival, it is maladaptive when it occurs outside the realm of actual threat. When we engage in behaviour that is subservient and appeasing to others, we are likely to feel that we are easy to manipulate, or that we are a ‘pushover’. To abandon oneself to appease others and prevent even the slightest hint of conflict is to lose our own agency and behavioural autonomy. As a result, those who engage in this type of trauma response are subject to feelings of low self-worth, depression, and low self-esteem, which can have a knock-on effect and lead the individual into other maladaptive coping behaviours to alleviate their symptoms, such as the misuse of substances.[9]
Such behaviour also attracts narcissistic personality types into the life of the fawner. Narcissistic people may be abusive and exploitative of the fawner’s lack of agency and ease of malleability as a person.
— ”The Subtle Effects of Trauma: People Pleasing,” January 8, 2021
In criminal enterprises like the mob and terrorist groups, the codependency created by the leader in his followers is a necessary condition in fulfilling the leader’s needs and protecting his status. This group is a source of danger to the leader since they are always a threat to compete with or overtake the boss. In the Trump orbit, this group includes DeSantis, Pence, Pompeo, et.al. The former are attracted to the power and wealth of a man like Trump, while the latter are attracted by their nearness to the seat of power and wealth — and desire it for themselves.
THE CASE FOR DOING NOTHING
The consequences that some ask prosecutors to consider refer to retaliatory measures by a post-midterm Congress and by Trump allies in the streets. They fear the reaction of Trump’s “base” and warn of the reprisals by Republicans. The handwringing plays into the hands of those who have held our democracy and reason at bay for the past six years. In truth, we are now living with the very consequences they want to avoid. The white supremacists, racists, and bigots — Trump’s apt-named deplorables — are actively supporting Trump’s continued criminality, and are undermining the very democratic structures that can bring him to justice. Those who would argue for inaction by the DOJ for fear of more violence ironically strengthen his hand. Here is their case:
But even with powerful evidence of guilt, prosecutors will face daunting challenges to persuade a jury of Trump’s guilt, and then defend that conviction in appellate courtrooms. Indeed, for a prosecutor, these challenges may be far more consequential than having an airtight case. Consider the following concerns that might cause a prudent prosecutor with a powerful case to fear charging Trump and bringing him to trial.
The article goes on to list the reasons why an indictment and trial prosecuting Trump’s crimes may be ill-advised. Their reasoning should be dismissed as heresy. Would they argue the same had the charge been homicide? Child molestation? Kidnapping? Deciding not to prosecute an individual for provable crimes discounts the rule of law and circumvents justice.
THE CASE TO INDICT
In the Eastman case, a Federal judge ruled that Trump and his cohorts had “more likely than not” committed crimes when they sought to stop the congressional count of the Electoral College ballots on Jan. 6, 2021. But there’s more:
There are two principal tracks of the investigation that could ultimately lead to additional scrutiny of Trump…The first centers on seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding… The second involves potential fraud associated with the false-electors scheme or with pressure Trump and his allies allegedly put on the Justice Department and others to falsely claim that the election was rigged and votes were fraudulently cast. — ”Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe,” by Carol D. Leonnig,Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, and Spencer S. Hsu. July 26, 2022
The government is likely already in possession of evidence of Trump’s crimes. Trump’s actions on the day of the insurrection have been detailed in the testimony of others and in his own words. What has already been made public suggests that he was part of the planning and carrying out of the insurrection on J6. Trump’s call to Georgia’s Secretary of State to steal votes was recorded and is part of a probe by Fulton County DA Fani Willis has strengthened the case that the alleged criminal activity being pursued by the county’s Grand Jury is part of a larger conspiracy to defraud the government and promote an unlawful coup.
If Trump is not held accountable for these crimes in a court of law and if only his lieutenants and sidekicks pay, then we will have borne consequences far worse than anything his minions will carry out. The arguments for restraint and caution miss the point. An indictment preserves a principle far greater than the “peace and tranquility” the hand-wringers hope for. At stake is the Rule of Law and democracy itself:
For his part, Trump reportedly believes that running for president will allow him to claim the investigation is a politically motivated witch hunt, while actually winning a second term will let him shut it down (and, knowing him, try to have anyone who worked on it prosecuted). According to Rolling Stone, he’s also told numerous people that should he be indicted, the protests would make January 6 “look small by comparison.” Which is pretty chilling…
— Vanity Fair, ”TRUMP’S LEGAL TEAM IS “PLANNING FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES” FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, by Bess Levin, August 1, 2022
Of all the consequences the nation may face at the hands of Donald Trump, this one is the most dangerous and unacceptable. The Department of Justice led by Merrick Garland must see to it that it is also most unlikely.
If the evidence warrants, indict him.
Originally published at https://www.dailykos.com on August 22, 2022.
