Donald Trump and Judge Arthur Engoron
Donald Trump's legal woes have grown significantly worse in the past couple of days, to the point that they might start interfering with his chances of regaining the presidency, according to a post from Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic (TNR). Tomasky even ranks the cases, from bad to worst, and we invite you to stick around for a few moments to learn which case Tomasky views as most damaging to Trump -- and why.
Tomasky writes under the headline "How Jack Smith Became the Worst Part of Trump's Historically Lousy Week. And he begins with an item titled "Fani Willis is a distraction; Trump’s defenses are falling apart." Writes Tomasky:
The big headlines Friday morning concerned Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the combative testimony Thursday she offered concerning her affair with Nathan Wade. But that wasn’t the big story of the week on the Donald Trump legal front. In fact, it may have been about fifth.
What’s bigger? Let’s start with Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to deny Trump’s attorneys’ bid to delay pretrial motions in the case she’s hearing, about Trump’s removal of classified documents from the White House. Cannon, you’ll recall, was appointed by Trump. After the documents case landed so unserendipitously in her lap, she made a series of nakedly pro-Trump rulings; the 11th Circuit vacated one order of hers that would have helped Trump delay the proceedings. She also blocked federal investigators from examining the material seized by the FBI, a decision eviscerated by legal experts. So maybe she’s gotten the message that she’d better be a real judge, not a sycophant.
Things are really looking grim in Trump World when he can't even get a favorable ruling out of Aileen Cannon. And the bad news was only starting with her, Tomasky reports:
The big headlines Friday morning concerned Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the combative testimony Thursday she offered concerning her affair with Nathan Wade. But that wasn’t the big story of the week on the Donald Trump legal front. In fact, it may have been about fifth.
What’s bigger? Let’s start with Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to deny Trump’s attorneys’ bid to delay pretrial motions in the case she’s hearing, about Trump’s removal of classified documents from the White House. Cannon, you’ll recall, was appointed by Trump. After the documents case landed so unserendipitously in her lap, she made a series of nakedly pro-Trump rulings; the 11th Circuit vacated one order of hers that would have helped Trump delay the proceedings. She also blocked federal investigators from examining the material seized by the FBI, a decision eviscerated by legal experts. So maybe she’s gotten the message that she’d better be a real judge, not a sycophant.
Trump also was dealt a blow this week when Juan Merchan, the judge in the Stormy Daniels hush-money trial, dismissed another attempt at delay by Trump’s lawyers. That trial will start, as scheduled, on March 25.
And—no, it doesn’t stop!—another judge, Arthur Engoron, slammed Trump with a penalty of more than $350 million in a New York civil fraud case, and it includes an order that bars Trump from operating a business in New York for three years. The New York Times reports that the order "could cost [Trump] all his available cash and noted that Engoron said Trump's "complete lack of contrition" borders on pathological.
That brings us to Special Counsel Jack Smith and the election-interference case in Washington,D.C., that Tomasky ranks as the most damaging of all to Trump:
But for my money, the worst part of Trump’s week came in the filing by special counsel Jack Smith to the Supreme Court in response to the Trump team’s request for a stay on that trial, which is the January 6 insurrection case. In a 40-page filing, Smith and his attorneys dismantled Trump’s arguments one by one. Smith had until February 20 to file this response, but he did it eight days early and he means business: “The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law. Applicant seeks a stay to prevent proceedings in the district court from moving towards trial, which the district court had scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024, before applicant’s interlocutory appeal necessitated postponement of that date. Applicant cannot show, as he must to merit a stay, a fair prospect of success in this Court.”
In short, Smith shows that Trump's efforts at delay in the Jan. 6 case are toast, and the prosecution is ready to throw the car into "drive" and get proceedings rolling. Tomasky writes:
Why is this filing so important? Three reasons. First, Smith urges the Court to act quickly. He still wants the trial to start in March. If the Court agrees, picture it: Trump on trial in two separate courtrooms, on charges that strike precisely at the heart of the two biggest manifestations of his moral turpitude: In New York, as a private citizen, as a man, who treats women like garbage; in Washington, as a public, um, servant who mocks the Constitution and believes that no law applies to him. It will be perfect stereo spectacle for Americans to spend the spring observing.
Second, while it’s true that we’re dealing with a very politicized Supreme Court here, and it’s obvious that at least two justices (Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas) will rule for Trump on just about anything, Smith’s response makes a very strong set of arguments that should appeal to at least some of the Court’s conservative originalists. “The Framers,” Smith writes, “did not provide any explicit textual source of immunity to the President.”
This is a hugely significant paragraph from Tomasky. Probably drawing on the high court's signals that they are prepared to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to keep Trump on the ballot in Colorado -- even though he clearly is disqualified as an insurrectionist under law that dates to the Civil War -- Tomasky quotes Smith essentially daring the justices to do their jobs and abide by their oaths to uphold the law, suggesting Smith knows the justices are unlawfully showing favoritism toward Trump, and he is willing to throw it right back in their corrupt faces. Writes Tomasky:
And third: The Smith case is the most important of all, for the simple reason that inciting the January 6 insurrection is the worst thing Trump has done. Granted there is stiff competition for his most mortal sin. But egging on a crowd to overthrow the government and hang your own vice president still takes the cake. If Smith succeeds in convincing the Supremes to expedite this case and goes on to win a pre-election conviction, that ought to seal Trump’s fate. Some recent polls have shown that swing state swing voters would be highly disinclined to vote for Trump if convicted of a crime.
We’ve seen the conventional wisdom turning on this question in recent weeks. Last year, the standard media line was to say that all the indictments were helping Trump, which was true if you were talking only about Republican primary voters. But now the attention of the media and of pollsters is turning toward general election voters, and they see matters differently.
Every one of these cases is important because each one points to a grotesque deficiency of character that demonstrates why Trump should never be president again. But the insurrection case is the first among equals. A conviction in this case before November 5 really should be the end of the road for Trump. It all depends on the Supreme Court agreeing with Smith’s motion this week. He made as strong a case as could be made.