From the desk of… Donald Trump’s arraignment – ​​The Ukiah Daily Journal

[ad_1]

Several days have passed since the Justice Department notified former President Donald Trump that he was indicted. Some of the key issues involved, both legal and political, are becoming clearer than in the first agitated hours after the news.

First, the politics. Early indications are that predictions that Trump’s supporters will rally around him in the event of an indictment appear to be true. A poll by CBS News and YouGov found that 76 percent of likely Republican primary voters said the indictment was politically motivated. When asked if the impeachment would change their view of Trump, 61 percent said it would not change their view, while 14 percent said it would change their view of Trump for the better. Only seven percent said it would change their view of Trump, and 18 percent said it depends, meaning they’re not sure.

In a Reuters-Ipsos poll, 81 percent of Republicans said “politics is driving the case.” “The indictment does not appear to affect Trump’s standing in the Republican nominating contest for the 2024 presidential election,” Reuters reported. So the answer, at least for now, to the question of whether the impeachment will hurt Trump among Republicans is no.

There are two other groups joining the political calculation – the Republican presidential candidates and GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Reporters were the same, almost every prominent Republican within a mile of the microphone was asked to declare a position on Trump’s impeachment.

Republican presidential contenders are in a tough spot. They know that most Republican voters believe that Trump has been unfairly targeted for years. And they know the numbers above, where large majorities of Republicans say the latest charges against Trump are politically motivated. So, on the one hand, they have an interest in telling voters what they want to hear, that Trump is being targeted politically.

On the other hand, they are running against Trump, not him. If the indictment ultimately weakens Trump politically, his Republican opponents will benefit. So today, we see some of those candidates trying to walk a fine line – denouncing what some call the government’s weapon against Trump but at the same time acknowledging that the charges against him are serious.

Immediately after the accusation, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s leading challenger, tweeted, “Arming federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society.” DeSantis suggested Trump was the victim of “uneven application of the law.” But at the same time, DeSantis noted that he, DeSantis, had to carefully follow classification rules when he was in the US Navy. The implication is clear: the president must also follow those rules.

Both Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott took the case against Trump seriously, with Haley saying that if the allegations are true, then Trump has been “incredibly reckless with our national security.” Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president, chose to ask for more information. “The American people have a right to know why it was necessary for the first time in history to bring this type of indictment against a former president of the United States,” Pence said.

On Capitol Hill, some of Trump’s strongest supporters remain firmly on his side. That’s not a surprise, since some of them are from districts where Republicans support the former president more than the poll suggests.

Next, the legal side. The first thing to say is that many respected legal voices believe that the indictment is a very serious document. “I was surprised at the level of sensitivity of these documents and how many there are,” former Attorney General William Barr told Fox News. “If even half of this is true, he’s toast.”

That doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t have his defenses. For example, the information at the center of the indictment appears to have come from Trump’s lawyers, who were forced by special counsel Jack Smith to testify despite the attorney-client privilege. Smith received court approval, but as Lawfare notes, a trial will test that approval and “raise questions about the limits of one of the most sacred principles in our legal system, the attorney-client privilege.”

Trump could also argue that, as president, he is allowed to decide what documents should be sent to the National Archives as “presidential records” and what documents he will keep. What if he kept records that were clearly presidential in nature? He may argue that he still has that authority, and his defense will certainly explore the limits, if any, of that authority.

Then there’s the question of the seriousness of the documents Trump is accused of mishandling. The indictment says they are among the government’s most sensitive secrets. The indictment describes them as follows:

“The classified documents that Trump has stored in his boxes include information about the defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerability of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.”

What could be more serious than that? On the other hand, the description is still vague. In fact, it can describe a lot of information that is available in the public domain. A Trump trial, if any, could reveal how widely the specific information Smith cited was distributed within the US government. Is it very tightly held? Or more widely available? That could make a difference in the jury’s assessment of the seriousness of Trump’s actions.

Finally, Trump’s defenders – perhaps not Trump’s lawyers in court, but Trump’s defenders – will argue in the big picture, that the Biden administration took a dangerous step in impeaching a former president. “The Biden administration crossed a constitutional Rubicon this week,” Berkeley law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official John Yoo wrote. “For the first time in our history, an executive branch held by an incumbent political party has impeached the leading presidential candidate of another major political party.”

More from Yoo: “Biden administration officials must explain why prosecuting Trump for mishandling classified documents justifies ignoring two centuries of constitutional practice.”

That’s perhaps the most important question of the entire Trump prosecution: Should it be done? Are there other, less constitutionally consequential, ways of dealing with Trump’s behavior? The Biden administration gave its answer. The final resolution of that question will take a long time.

This content originally appeared in the Washington Examiner at washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/donald-trumps-arraignment.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner. For a deeper dive into many of the topics Byron covers, listen to his podcast, The Byron York Show, available on the Ricochet Audio Network at ricochet.com/series/byron-york-show and wherever podcasts can be found.

[ad_2]