On the Left, dealing with disappointment of Trump indictment
Byron York
ON THE LEFT, DEALING WITH DISAPPOINTMENT OF TRUMP INDICTMENT. Something odd happened in the days leading up to the New York indictment of former President Donald Trump. Nobody outside a small group of prosecutors knew what the sealed indictment said. But on the basis of leaks — there were a lot — as well as indicators of what the grand jury was doing, observers could sketch out what the indictment would likely be. And it seemed…weak.
As the days went by, critics noted that the expected main charge, falsification of business records, is a misdemeanor with a long-passed two-year statute of limitations. Democratic prosecutor Alvin Bragg, it was said, would try to inflate that misdemeanor into a felony by alleging that Trump falsified business records to cover up another crime. But nobody could quite figure out what that other crime would be. Would it be a federal campaign finance violation? If so, how could Bragg, a local prosecutor, prosecute a federal offense? Would it be a violation of New York state election law? If so, how could Bragg apply that to a presidential election? It all seemed very problematic.
Yet the hardiest anti-Trumpers tried to keep hope alive. They grew excited by leaks that the indictment would have 34 counts. That’s some serious crime — with 34 counts, maybe there would be something new in there. Maybe this case would be much more serious than the critics said.
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
Alas, it didn’t happen. If anything, Bragg’s indictment, when it was finally made public, was even weaker than the critics had predicted. (See here for one of the many good analyses of the case’s legal deficiencies.) The weakness, for those who had been expecting or hoping for more, was a deep disappointment. On CNN, for example, the chagrin was obvious.
“In terms of a case that’s being brought against a former president, it’s a little underwhelming,” CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero said. “There’s nothing new in terms of the facts.” Cordero alluded to hopes that had been running high in some circles. “In the days leading up to today,” she said, “there were some in the public who were questioning whether or not there were other tax charges that might be or the other types of financial fraud that maybe would be charged today. And that doesn’t seem to be the case.”
CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez said his sources in the Justice Department had a similar reaction. “They are, like us, I think, a little bit underwhelmed by the facts they saw presented,” Perez said.
And then there was Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director and now a CNN analyst. Asked his reaction to the indictment, he said: “If I had to characterize it, it’s disappointment. I think everyone was hoping we would see more about the direction that they intend to take this prosecution. What is the legal theory that ties that very solid misdemeanor case, 34 counts of misdemeanors, to the intent to conceal another crime, which is what makes it a felony? It simply isn’t there.”
Some liberal commentators who expressed skepticism also had to establish their anti-Trump credentials so no one would suspect that they were criticizing the indictment because they secretly liked Trump. In the Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus wrote that she hopes prosecutors win, even though the case is weak, “because a failure to secure a conviction will only inflame Trump and his supporters in their claims that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them.” Still, Marcus conceded the New York case is deeply flawed. “The indictment unsealed on Tuesday is disturbingly unilluminating,” she wrote, “and the theory on which it rests is debatable at best, unnervingly flimsy at worst.”
The Wall Street Journal, in a news story, not an editorial, quoted a number of “legal observers” who suggested the New York case against Trump “represents a delicate and untested welding of minor criminal offenses … is built on a somewhat wobbly foundation, [and] is made up of circumstantial evidence and insider testimony from a fervent Trump foe [Michael Cohen] whose credibility Mr. Trump’s defense team will be sure to assail. ‘I was expecting more in the four corners of the indictment,’ said Jeremy Shockett, a white-collar criminal defense attorney in New York.”
Underwhelming. Disappointing. I expected more. It is hard to overstate how fervently millions of anti-Trumpers, Never Trumpers, and members of the Resistance had hoped to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. And now, finally, comes an indictment of the hated former president, and it’s underwhelming? That is difficult to accept.
Which is why some on the Left, after getting over the initial shock, tried to change the terms of the debate. The Trump indictment is not really about the law, they said — it’s about American democracy. “I think that the DA did something good by presenting this as about democracy,” CNN’s Van Jones said. “Up until now, everything else was defending democracy in Georgia, the coup, and then we have this weird porn star stuff. Everybody says: What the heck is this? [Bragg] says no, this was about corrupting our democracy.”
“Over the last week or so, we have really distilled this down to hush money payments,” added another CNN commentator, former Hillary Clinton spokeswoman Karen Finney. “I do think it’s important that we go back to our democracy and remember that this is information that the voters did not have when they went to the ballot in 2016. We will never, ever know if that would have had a bearing on the outcome of that election.”
Democracy — that’s it! After initial disappointment, some on the Left jumped at a new way to describe the Trump indictment. It’s not about law or specific charges or a weak theory or any of that. It’s about democracy, and therefore, you should hope that Trump is convicted even if the case is weak, even if the charges were not worth bringing, because any other result could endanger our democracy. In an indictment filled with weak arguments, that might be the weakest of all.
For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show — available on the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found. You can use this link to subscribe.