I recently asked a long time Jackson lawyer what he thought of the Trump indictments. My friend replied: “I think it’s all political.” I didn’t want to get into it with a friend, but I have reflected and have 10 questions. If it is “all political”, then:
One. Why was it three prominent Republicans, the President’s Attorney General Bill Barr, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and former Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers, that are recited in the indictments telling Mr. Trump flatly his election claims of fraud were devoid of evidence and false?
Two. If it was politics, why is every single witness recited in Jack Smith’s two Federal indictments charging Trump with the conspiracies to steal the 2020 election and to retain and secrete defense security documents a Republican?
Three. If political, why is DA Fani Willis relying on grand jury testimonies of the top four Republicans who ran Georgia during the 2020 election for much of her sweeping racketeering indictment naming Mr. Trump as kingpin? The Grand Jury heard testimonies against Mr. Trump from Republican Governor Brian Kemp, Republican Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and Republican House Speaker David Ralston, describing several “perfect” phone calls they received urging violations of law.
Four. If all politics, why was the highest-ranking witness who appeared before the grand juries Mr. Trump’s own Republican Vice President? The Vice President quotes Mr. Trump as complaining to him, “you’re too honest!” Trump’s complaint was in response to the Vice President’s refusals to throw the election to state Republican legislatures to determine, or to count the votes of Trump’s fake electors instead of the state certified electors, because doing so would violate the laws of the US Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
Five. If it is mere political, instead of criminal, why does it appear Mr. Trump’s own Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, felt compelled to flip and turn state’s evidence to support Jack Smith’s two Federal indictments?
Six. If mere political, why couldn’t Trump win any of his 60 electoral court challenges before Republican as well as Democratically appointed judges, or on appeal before the Republican dominated justices of the US Supreme Court?
Seven. If just politics, why was Fani Willis able to rely on sworn testimonies of three Republican state House Speakers to evidence the racketeering charge: Arizona Republican Speaker Rusty Bowers, Michigan Republican Speaker Lee Chatfield, and Republican Pennsylvania Speaker Bryan Cutler?
Eight. If political, why was every sworn witness presented in the hearings of the House Select Committee on the January 6 insurrection a Republican? Most memorable are the testimonies of Meadows aide Cassi Hutchinson, White House Counsel Pat Cippollone, and Trump attorney Eric Herschmann, all Republicans who described their efforts to avert Trump’s determined actions leading to the January 6 insurrection.
Nine. If it is all political, how is Fani Willis able to detail 161 separate overt acts comprising the racketeering conspiracy led by Mr. Trump to steal the 2020 election?
Ten. If just political, why have two conservative law professors, members of the Federalist Society, recently concluded in a long article for the Pennsylvania Law Review, that under the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3, “Donald Trump cannot be president—cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office—unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct Jan. 6”? The law professors point out that the Amendment is self-executing; all it takes is a civil law suit on a preponderance of the evidence to determine Mr. Trump must be enjoined from further participation in the election, or be denied a place on the ballot if nominated. It will not take guilty verdicts on the indictments, then, to determine if Mr. Trump is ineligible to become President again. It would take just a civil verdict that Mr. Trump, in the words of the Constitution, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, or [who has] given aid or comfort to its enemies….”
Answers to those ten questions above all point to the fact that the charge “it is all political” is an attempt to avoid having to face up to the necessity of criminal prosecutions. The rule of law is at stake. Constitutional order is at stake. Our democracy is clearly at stake in the outcome. Prosecuting a former President on 91 State and Federal criminal counts is not political. It is the law for adjudicating in the criminal justice system crimes determined by grand juries sitting in multiple jurisdictions as having probable cause.
Robert P. Wise is a Northsider.
