I'm Coming After You!

After all the news about the latest indictments of the former president this week, I was startled to see his all-caps pronouncement on Friday that "If you come after me, then I am coming after you!"

This absolutely defied the judge's admonition at his arraignment to not threaten or tamper with any witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury. Consequently, his lawyers must appear in court on Monday to discuss his threats. Some have said that he is already in contempt of the conditions of his bail, but many are wondering just how much defiance this judge will allow him. (I cannot decide whether this threat sounds like playground bullies or bad gangster movies!)

Special prosecutor Jack Smith asked the judge for a protective order: as quoted from USA Today:  "As Donald Trump made more threats against opponents in the wake of a third indictment, special counsel Jack Smith asked a judge late Friday for a protective order against the ex-president, seeking to prevent him from publicizing evidence from witnesses."

Dan Balz, the veteran Washington Post columnist, wrote about this spectacle this week.

He commented that the 2024 campaign will be unlike any other, as everything will be shadowed by the former president and his legal battles. It will be more about the past than the future, even though campaigns traditionally offer visions for positive ideas and try to be uplifting.

He further says: "Trump, the apostle of grievance and victimhood, promises the opposite. The 2024 campaign cycle has barely begun, but Americans already have been subjected to an endless loop of revelations, commentary and now criminal indictments involving Trump's actions.

This campaign will be about the past for another reason. Trump wants to take the country back if elected to a second term — back to the attacks on government institutions with even more fervor than in his first term, back to the divisiveness that marked his tenure from 2017 to 2021. He has said that he will be his followers' retribution. There's nothing forward-looking in that pledge.”

After further discussion on traditional campaign issues such as the economy, inflation, and Bidenomics, which will be part of the speeches seen on the stump, Balz additionally discusses the threats to democracy which underline all other aspects this year. He says:

"Never in modern times in this country has a campaign been waged around such elemental questions about threats to democratic institutions and questions about the judicial system. That is the defining agenda for 2024, no matter on which side of the divide voters stand and regardless of other traditional issues that will be talked about over the next 15 months."

 

Former prosecutor Randall Eliason discusses the indictments brought by Jack Smith as brilliant in a New York Times opinion article:

"The lead charge, conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, is a go-to charge for federal prosecutors. Count 1 charges a conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing and defeating the lawful counting of votes and certification of the election. Conspiracy is the perfect vehicle for describing a complex criminal scheme and identifying all the actors and everything they did."

Along with this charge to further discuss the conspiracy, the Special Prosecutor included 6 unindicted co-conspirators. CBS News tentatively identified these as Attorney Rudy Giuliani, Attorney John Eastman, Attorney Sidney Powell, Attorney Jeffrey Clark, Attorney Kenneth Chesbro, and a political consultant, not yet identified.

"Counts 2 and 3 are conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of a proceeding, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1512. Prosecutors have successfully used this statute to charge hundreds of the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters, including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, with disrupting the joint congressional proceeding to certify the election results."

The judge, Tanya Chutkan, selected to hear this case has already tangled with the president about the privacy of his documents, claiming at one point "that a president is not a King," when she permitted the January 6^th committee access to some presidential records. She has sentenced many January 6^th defendants to jail, with some receiving even harsher sentences than requested by prosecutors. President Obama nominated her, a black female immigrant from Jamaica, who previously served as a public defender, in 2014. The Senate approved Chutkan unanimously then.

 

"Count 4 is a civil rights violation under 18 U.S.C. Section 241. That statute makes it a crime to “injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate" any people in their exercise and enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws. Based on the same evidence, this charge alleges that Mr. Trump and others conspired to injure one or more people by depriving them of their right to have their votes counted."

Section 241 initially was used against the Ku Klux Klan when it tried to intimidate black voters from voting in many parts of the country. This count alleges that by trying to usurp the proper certification of the electoral count and also by trying to further delay certifying and undercut that effort with fake electors, the former president, and his minions conspired to defraud the American voters.

 

Many have said this will be the trial of the century and that our democracy is at stake here. I agree. Despite the defenders of the former president who claim that he could do whatever he wished when he was president and that the indictment stifles his right to free speech, the counts do not mention his speech, but clearly define a conspiracy to overturn the election by multiple attempts. It acknowledges that some attempts were by legal means, such as challenges to individual voters. Others, such as the call to Georgia election officials such as Mr. Raffensberger, asking him to find the number of voters that could turn the state to a win for him, were illegal attempts to circumvent the will of the people.

 

As reported by the Daily Beast, the former president took to his 'Truth Social account' and called to have the trial moved to West Virginia, called the judge, a nightmare judge, and castigated Jack Smith as demented for charging him in a free speech case. I would not be surprised if the judge did not soon tell him he could no longer use social media or try some other type of gag order. DJT is truly walking a fine line and daring the judge to do anything about it. He has not quite realized that as a criminal defendant, he may have some privileges as a former president, but not so many as he might wish. (Apparently, he was furious that at the arraignment they addressed him as Mr., but not as Mr. President, he reportedly threw a tantrum on his plane ride home.)

Ruth Marcus had an excellent opinion column in the Washington Post recently, where she wrote the former president after conspiring to subvert the Constitution, is now trying to wrap himself in it and claim free speech.

She further states:

"But Trump is not being prosecuted for his repeated lies about a stolen election. He is being prosecuted for the efforts he made, the actions he took to operationalize that contention and prevent the clear will of the voters from being realized, or what the indictment calls "unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results."

Just because words are involved in the commission of these alleged crimes does not mean that prosecuting Trump violates his First Amendment rights. The protections of the First Amendment are strong and capacious, but they are not unlimited.”

She quotes remarks on this issue by Congressman Jamie Raskin, who served on the Impeachment and January 6^th committees.

"The heart of our jurisprudence with respect to the First Amendment is the difference between regulating speech and regulating conduct," Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), once a constitutional law professor, told me. "Everything charged in the indictment involves criminal conduct by Donald Trump and not the mere expression of political views. If Donald Trump wanted to say that the joint session organizing the peaceful transfer of power was a fraud and a charade, he had every right to say that. But he had no right to actually obstruct the proceeding."

On the TV news channels, the former president's legal defenders are trying the case on the airwaves. Each day there seems to be a fresh line of defense. Free speech one day, presidential rights on another, a genuine belief in election fraud on another; despite multiple staff telling him he lost fairly, without fraud.

It seems they are trotting each one out to see which appears to poll higher in public opinion. Public opinion will not convince a judge, nor a serious jury. The saying goes that his lawyers just have to convince one juror. But it is telling to note that similar charges were considered before a special jury in Atlanta by the Fulton County DA Lewis and were agreed to by that jury. That DA is expects to announce the current grand jury findings as early as this week.

 

In my opinion, this man should never have been elected. DJT does not understand or respect democracy. He appears to have trampled on our laws and plans to do worse by exacting revenge should he ever gain power again. And, he has announced plans to destroy the structures that have held our democracy in place since the days of the Founding Fathers. He cannot be elected again. The Republican Party, so cowed by his threats to run candidates against those who speak out, continues to be silent.

Heather Cox Richardson commented on the arraignment this week (August 3, 2023) and quoted Professor Timothy Snyder:

"Yale history professor Timothy Snyder noted: “That Trump will be tried for his coup attempt is not a violation of his rights. It is a fulfillment of his rights. It is the grace of the American Republic. In other systems, when your coup attempt fails, what follows is not a trial." While Trump has tried to whip up his supporters to fight for him, only a few turned out today to protest the proceedings, likely in part because the prosecutions of January 6 rioters have shown there are serious consequences for such actions."

Life goes on. The former president continues to rant in anger. The justice system continues to prosecute those who act against our laws.

“Til next week-Peace!