[ad_1]
The master of normalizing the once unthinkable is facing indictment, and no one seems surprised.
Spencer Platt/Getty
March 10, 2023, 11:53 AM ET
This is not normal, Donald Trump’s opponents warn as he takes office and begins enacting his agenda. He gave them so many opportunities to use the phrase that it became first a cliché and then a sorry joke.
But the warning is not wrong: Trump acclimated Americans to many terrible actions through exposure therapy. What was once novel and terrifying has become familiar; familiarity breeds contempt, but also enough acceptance to let Trump get away with a lot. Ironically, Trump may himself now be at risk of falling victim to the same pattern. The idea that a former president could be prosecuted for a crime, by repeating it, has gone from an unthinkable violation of long-established norms to something expected that the actual event would can feel like an anticlimax.
Yesterday, The New York Times broke the news that Trump has been invited to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, which is investigating whether he illegally paid hush money to an adult actress to cover up an affair. The $130,000 payment is a matter of fact; Trump has denied the affair and any wrongdoing. Such an invitation is almost always a prelude to charges, and is almost always refused.
Trump responded publicly with a video and a statement in which he hit all the usual notes: witch hunt, Democratic politician, Hunter Biden, etc. But at this point, Trump seems to be laying the groundwork to defend himself in court, rather than trying to stop each of the investigations against him.
Each of those probes moves quickly, and anyone can come up with charges. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be in the running to indict Fani Willis, the prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, who is investigating attempts by Trump and others to overturn the 2020 election there. (By comparison to the Fulton County investigation, the Manhattan allegations feel terribly pedestrian, but perhaps it shows how Trump has normalized behavior that was once considered unacceptable. ) Meanwhile, federal Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is looking into potential crimes related to the January 6 insurrection and Trump’s mishandling of documents, faces a de facto deadline of the next presidential inauguration .
Not so long ago, the idea that a former president could be indicted for a crime was a subject of dread, even for those who believed that charging Trump was justified or even prudent.
It is easy to imagine a losing president resisting calls to leave the White House at least in part because he fears subsequent prosecution, or a winning president prosecuting his opponents over normal political differences, wrote Paul Rosenzweig in The Atlantic in October 2020. Indicting a former president risks making a habit of doing so, and turning America into little more than a revolving-door banana republic. (This is prophetic; Trump lost, tried to block the withdrawal, and now risks prosecution.)
Although Rosenzweig recommended investigating Trump for crimes committed only before or after his presidency, others came to different conclusions. Even some of Trump’s staunchest critics felt that any attempt to prosecute was too fraught to consider, while others felt that the rule of law demanded comprehensive investigations and charges if justified, no matter when they occurred. any crimes.
The point has been vigorously debated. In a place that slipped. Many commentators still argue that the charges against Trump will have dangerous effects or are simply not justified by the facts, but the conversation is now academic. Was determining when the move occurred difficult when an FBI search turned up so many presidential documents at Mar-a-Lago? Or when the Fulton County grand jury finishes its work? Or when Jack Smith is nominated? but a prospect which once seemed remote has, by long discussion, become almost inevitable.
In a way, Trump has become a victim of his own deception. In his first campaign and his presidency, he will introduce some wonderful concept, overcome the initial reaction, and then repeat it until the population is numb to it. Called for a ban on Muslims entering the US, interfering with Justice Department investigations of himself, disclosing classified materials, openly siding with dictators like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin in the military and intelligence agencies of the US, which enlists the federal government’s investigative powers as a tool for his re-election even though each of them continues to scare, has lost its shock value through prolonged exposure.
And after all, it was Trump who first normalized the idea of prosecuting a rival presidential candidate. (He probably regrets that now.) Just as Trump used the tactic to enable his abuses, the normalization of Trump’s prosecution is bad for American society. This is true even if you believe (as I do) that many of Trump’s actions justify his impeachment. The idea that a former president would be prosecuted should never be commonplace, but the way out is not found in prosecutorial discretion one way or another. Instead, it’s up to the voters. A good start is to avoid electing presidents who are likely to commit many crimes.
|
Sources 2/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/trumps-manhattan-grand-jury-invite-signals-big-shift/673355/ The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article |
[ad_2]