We have been here before countless times: prematurely anticipating the end of Donald Trump on the basis of actions or implications that, for anyone else, would have proven fatal long ago. Quick recap: the former president is facing four separate criminal cases, involving 91 felony counts, in four separate states; plus a civil fraud case currently being heard in Manhattan; plus a second defamation suit brought by the writer E Jean Carroll, whom earlier this year Trump was found guilty of sexually assaulting and defaming and ordered to pay $5m. Plus a clutch of broken gag orders and the resultant fines.
The question in all of these cases is less whether Trump will be found guilty than whether there is any outcome whatsoever that would be capable of preventing him from standing for president next year, or – the more depressing calculation, in some ways – of damaging his chances, if not. Trump voters have, historically, proven even more resistant than the rest of us to changing their minds when the evidence changes. And Trump himself has an almost preternatural gift for turning the most unpromising situations to his advantage. Even so, there may, within the detail of these extremely wide-ranging cases, be some aspects that are more harmful to Trump than others.
For the former president, the most straightforwardly dangerous criminal trial – that is the one that is, simultaneously, the most serious and also appears to involve the most clear-cut evidence against him – is the so-called classified documents case, brought in Florida by special counsel Jack Smith. This case, which is due to be heard next May, ranges across 40 felony charges, the most serious of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, which perhaps explains why Trump has described Smith variously as “deranged”, a “thug” and a “Trump hater”. Trump’s defence – that he “un-classified” the documents before removing them from the White House – is seemingly contradicted by, for example, audio evidence of Trump saying he could have declassified “secret” documents, but didn’t.
And, yet, as a possible end to Trump’s political hopes the case isn’t as open and shut as it seems. For a start, it is slated to come before Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, and to be heard by a jury that will be selected from Florida districts that voted heavily for Trump. It is also a federal prosecution, meaning that should Trump’s lawyers manage to push the start date beyond the November election, and should Trump be returned to office, he could conceivably instruct the justice department to shut the whole thing down until his tenure expires.
That principle applies similarly to two of the other criminal cases: the hush money trial brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, which is scheduled for March next year and is in some ways the flimsiest of the four criminal trials, resting as it does on fiddly definitions around improper campaign donations. (Briefly: if Trump paid hush money to Stormy Daniels via his fixer, Michael Cohen, then lied about it, the DA’s office will try to contend that this constitutes not only a misdemeanour crime of cover-up, but a more serious felony entailing “intent to defraud” in the interests of furthering Trump’s election prospects. The $130,000 paid to Daniels may then be framed as an improper campaign donation.)
Much more serious for Trump is the four-count indictment for election interference, also being brought by Smith, in relation to Trump’s actions in the run-up to the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021. The most damning of those charges – that Trump tried to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters – is much harder to prove than anything he will face in the documents case. But, unlike Smith’s Florida case, this one will be heard in the District of Columbia, where the jury will be pulled from a population heaving with Democrats. It is also set for March, presenting the Republican frontrunner with mind-boggling logistical and psychological (where even to begin with this) issues.
That leaves what, on the surface, looks like the most local and least impressive case against Trump, which is the Georgia election interference case, alleging a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election result in Georgia via a pressure campaign and for which no date has yet been set. Oddly, of the four criminal cases, it is this case that is the most promising in terms of its potential to scupper Trump, purely because it has been brought under state not federal law, and as such lies beyond the reach of a sitting president.
Those are the criminal trials. On the evidence of Trump’s polling numbers, which over the past year have risen undisturbed as the 91 indictments rolled in, there is nothing much on paper to indicate that Trump is in trouble. Indeed, if being described by a judge, as Trump was earlier this year, as guilty of rape isn’t a dealbreaker for his supporters, then the small matter of alleged treason isn’t likely to move the needle either.
For my money, it is the current civil trial in New York, brought by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James, that threatens Trump’s reputation most acutely and right where it hurts. The suit carries no threat of prison or disruption to Trump’s presidential bid. But in the short term it does threaten to unseat his reputation as a businessman of any standing and strip him of his licence to operate a business in New York.
A judge has already found him guilty of fraud and this hearing is purely to assess the level of damages. Unlike all the other legal actions against Trump, which he has apparently successfully been able to pass off as part of some vast conspiracy against him, the fraud case, in which it is alleged that he inflated the value of his businesses to secure better loan rates, lands differently. It makes Trump look shabby, small-time, crooked and crucially, given the nature of his appeal, not nearly as wealthy as he says he is.
Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
