-by Patrick Toomey
Judge Aileen Cannon currently appears likely to preside over the trial in the Trump documents federal prosecution. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has asked for the trial date in the Trump documents federal prosecution to be continued from the current date of August 14 to December 11.
Assuming the trial did start then, perhaps it would be over in less than 2 weeks. Conducting this trial during the holidays would be a challenge. Judge Cannon has considerable discretion on trial setting, but, were she to follow Smith’s suggestion, Trump’s fate would be known before the Iowa GOP Caucus, which is likely to be scheduled in January.
Prognosticating about the likely political ramifications should Trump be convicted on multiple charges, convicted on a relative handful of charges, or get a hung jury can be a fascinating parlor game (odds of an outright acquittal on all charges currently appear to be negligible). The biggest concern, however, is about what such prospective verdicts might mean from a systemic perspective.
A once defeated and twice impeached former president remaining the dominant front-runner for 1 of our 2 major political parties after he was indicted on 37 felony counts for misuse of classified materials is scary in and of itself. His retaining (and maybe improving) that status after his trial attorneys were able to seat a MAGA-leaning juror or 2 and obtain a hung jury on all counts is that much scarier. His remaining a leading contender after getting convicted on a series of counts would be scariest of all.
I cut my political teeth during the Watergate Scandal. I faithfully followed the Senate Committee Hearings in the summer of 1973 and the House Impeachment Committee Hearings the following summer. I still recall how there was an across the board consensus that Richard Nixon had to resign when the June 23, 1972 tape (where he instructed H.R. Haldeman to tell the FBI to back off investigating the Watergate burglary) surfaced. The House Committee had already approved 3 articles of impeachment (2 by landslide margins) before the “smoking gun” tape surfaced.
If the Nixon tape constituted a “smoking gun” then, Trump faces the equivalent of a smoking artillery battery now. The quantity and the quality of evidence arrayed against him is overwhelming. The full indictment, in and of itself, is dumbfounding.
This brief summary of the high points makes one nostalgic for Nixon:
Former President Donald Trump described a Pentagon “plan of attack” and shared a classified map related to a military operation, according to a sweeping 37-count felony indictment related to the mishandling of classified documents that was unsealed Friday and that could instantly reshape the 2024 presidential race.
The indictment paints an unmistakably damning portrait of Trump’s treatment of sensitive information, accusing him of willfully defying Justice Department demands to return documents he had taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, enlisting aides in his efforts to hide the records and even telling his lawyers that we wanted to defy a subpoena for the materials stored in his estate.
Openly obstructing justice after a hapless group of burglars working for your re-election team were caught in the act was, for many years thereafter, considered a low point in presidential wrongdoing. What Trump did with sensitive classified files is a different order of magnitude worse. He may yet face even more serious federal charges arising from the J-6 Insurrection, not to mention state charges in Georgia and an existing state indictment in New York. Perhaps there was a prior politician who remained viable while facing 4 simultaneous indictments in 4 different jurisdictions. I’m currently not aware of one.
In this century, events involving my profession have largely lost their ability to shock me. Events that would’ve once been at least noteworthy have largely become background noise. Trump’s continuing viability as a presidential candidate has almost become background noise. His staying viable after a trial on these charges would, however, be highly disturbing.
Trump once (in)famously said: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Neither of the charges he’s been indicted on thus far (nor either of the other 2 potential indictments he faces) involve Trump literally shooting anyone. He has, however, taken multiple metaphorical shots at the underpinnings of our legal system and he has, thus far, emerged unscathed. God help us all if he somehow manages to essentially dodge these charges.