This Is the Case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump stands indicted for attempting to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and subvert the rights of American citizens. This is the moment that will decide our future as a democracy.
This Is the Case
Over the past year, state and federal prosecutors have alleged that Donald Trump went on something like a crime spree as a presidential candidate, as the sitting president, and then as a private citizen after his defeat. The charges, from Manhattan to Mar-a-Lago, include business fraud, the illegal retention of classified material, and the destruction of evidence.
All of these accusations, however, pale in importance next to the indictment handed down today.
Trump is accused of multiple conspiracies against the United States, all designed to keep him in power against the will of the voters and in violation of the Constitution. The former president—once our chief executive, the commander in chief, the leader we entrusted with the keys to nuclear hell—is accused of knowing that he lost a free and fair election, and, rather than transferring power to a duly elected successor, engaging in criminal plots against our democracy, all while firing up a mob that would later storm the Capitol. (The Trump campaign issued a rambling statement that called the charges “fake.”)
Long before now, however, Americans should have reached the conclusion, with or without a trial, that Trump is a menace to the United States and poisonous to our society. (Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio once referred to Trump as “cultural heroin,” but that was before he decided to seek power in the Republican Party.) The GOP base, controlled by Trump’s cult of personality, will likely never admit its mistake: As my colleague Peter Wehner writes , Trump’s record of “lawlessness and depravity” means nothing to Republicans. But other Republicans now, more than ever, face a moment of truth. They must decide if they are partisans or patriots. They can no longer claim to be both.
The rest of us, as a nation but also as individuals, can no longer indulge the pretense that Trump is just another Republican candidate, that supporting Donald Trump is just another political choice, and that agreeing with Trump’s attacks on our democracy is just a difference of opinion. (Those of us who share our views in the media have a particular duty to cease discussing Trump as if he were a normal candidate—or even a normal person—especially after today’s indictment.) I have long described Trump’s candidacies as moral choices and tests of civic character, but I have also cautioned that Americans, for the sake of social comity, should resist too many arguments about politics among themselves. I can no longer defend this advice.
The indictment handed down today challenges every American to put a shoulder to the wheel and defend our republic in every peaceful, legal, and civilized way they can. According to the charges, not only did Trump try to overturn the election; he presided over a clutch of co-conspirators who intended to put down any further challenges to Trump’s continued rule by force. According to the indictment:
The Deputy White House Counsel reiterated to Co-Conspirator 4 that there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that if the Defendant [Trump] remained in office nonetheless, there would be “riots in every major city in the United States.” Co-Conspirator 4 responded, “Well, [Deputy White House Counsel], that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the U.S. armed forces against American citizens. The alleged plot inside the White House was not merely to invalidate an election; it included the possibility of unleashing the American military against its own people.
This is why we can no longer merely roll our eyes when an annoying uncle rhapsodizes about stolen elections. We should not gently ask our parents if perhaps we might change the channel from Fox during dinner. We are not obligated to gingerly change the subject when an old friend goes on about “Demonrats” or the dire national-security implications around Hunter Biden’s genitalia. Enough of all this; we can love our friends and our family and our neighbors without accepting their terms of debate . To support Trump is to support sedition and violence, and we must be willing to speak this truth not only to power but to our fellow citizens.
Trump and his media enablers, of course, will fume that any criticism of choices made by millions of voters is uncivil and condescending—even as they paint other American citizens as traitors who support pedophiles and perverts. Trump has made such accusations, and the implied threat of violence behind them, part of the everyday American political environment. This brutish bullying is aimed at stopping the rest of us from speaking our mind. But after today, every American citizen who cares about the Constitution should affirm, without hesitation, that any form of association with Trump is reprehensible, that each of us will draw moral conclusions about anyone who continues to support him, and that these conclusions will guide both our political and our personal choices.
This is painful advice to give and to follow. No one, including me, wants to lose friends or chill valued relationships over so small a man as Trump. But our democracy is about to go into legal and electoral battle for its own survival. If we don’t speak up—to one another, as well as to the media and to our elected officials—and Trump defeats us all by regaining power and making a mockery of American democracy, then we’ll all have lost a lot more than a few friendships. We face in Trump a dedicated enemy of our Constitution, and if he returns to office, his next “administration” will be a gang of felons, goons, and resentful mediocrities, all of whom will gladly serve Trump’s sociopathic needs while greedily dividing the spoils of power.
In the 1982 film The Verdict , Paul Newman plays Frank Galvin, an ambulance-chasing attorney with an alcohol addiction who takes on what he thinks will be a routine malpractice suit and soon finds himself fighting for justice against powerful institutions determined to stop him. On the eve of the trial, all seems lost. His mentor and former partner tries to comfort him. “There’ll be other cases,” his friend says. Galvin knows better. “There are no other cases,” he says quietly, with his eyes closed. “This is the case.” He repeats this truth, whispering to himself, over and over: “There are no other cases. This is the case.”
Jack Smith has indicted Donald Trump for trying to overthrow our system of government. There are no other cases. This is the case.
Any rule will last 2 seconds. Knock yourselves out!
Tags
Who is online
430 visitors
Find a National Park and take a walk in it before y'all go Ab Batty.
I wish the other side would take his advice, but rather than that I think the war will go on. We just have to make sure we win.
Nichols is a 'RINO', the "other side" would sooner impale him.
All the other a Trump indictments are just sideshows. This is the real deal. This will be the American version of The Nuremberg Trials...
Already watched it, this if televised will be ... um ... livelier.
Where is Clarence Darrow when we need him? Enter Jack Smith!
Didn’t Clarence say something like:
Obviously you don’t agree with that so why did you think that we need him now?
What does that have to do with Clarence Darrow? Do you know anything about him?
Darrow made mincemeat of conservative William Jennings Bryan...
This is an excellent article and makes the case clearly.
No amount of phony Trumpist propaganda can overcome that truth.
The time is rapidly drawing near when the American people must decide upon our path to the future.
Path to the future?
The classified documents case is the solid one.
under this novel theory, trump would be guilty of a crime even if he had iron clad proof the election was stolen. Simply asking pence to use powers under the election statute is apparently a crime.,
Sean the day of reckoning is arriving for people like you. There absolutely is a legal basis for this indictment. Conspiracies such as alleged in the indictment are absolutely illegal.
Go the Just Security web site. They have enough commentary on this situation to occupy one for days .
If Trump had iron clad proof the election was stolen it would have been adjudicated in a court of law long before it came down to asking Pence to toss the electors. No one showed anything close to evidence. The new charges against Trump are predicated on him KNOWING he lost the election and Smith will have to prove it in court.
It's been talked about online, and we'll see if it's true, but Trump's new lawyers here have been working on a defense saying Trump was acting on advice from his old lawyers and it's their fault. I'm hoping we hear testimony directly from Giuliani, Powell and Eastman at trial.
Does he ever take responsibility for anything?
To this day Trump has apparently truly believed he won the election and all his subsequent actions have evolved from that. I think Trump is wrong, but Smith is going to have a rough time proving intent and conspiracy.
You should petition his lawyers for the defense since you seem to know more than the Prosecutor.
It's a high bar, but I suspect he has several witnesses to put on the stand and testify to actual conversations they had with Trump. People like Sr WH Council and Sr DoJ personnel who told Trump many times he lost. I'm sure there will also be evidence presented of all the court cases tossed out from lack of evidence of election tampering. Memos and/or maybe testimony from the AG himself. If after all that and Trump still thinks he won the election he should be court ordered to take a competency test.
If our fellow cons/republicans wish to live in a banana republic, then do vote for trmp
I did the unthinkable and decided I should take a peek at Hannity last night just to contrast how this news is playing out on the other side. It was 100% whataboutism and as many mentions of Hunter and crack as he could squeeze in. I have no faith that the Fox audience can ever be swayed with the truth about Trump.
You have to be a brain dead moron to think the Trump crimes and Hunter crimes are on the same level of importance. Meet the morons
The trouble is, is that Hunter and Joe are partners in crime, and that Joe is the current president with awesome powers.
The people deserve to know if their president is a crook and if he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, or not.
Nope. There is only evidence that Hunter lied on a 4473 form. Unless the gun is used in a felony it is rare for there to be even a prosecution (looks like about 1 in 2,000).
If you're saying it's a crime for kids to capitalize on their parents' situation, then a majority of the well-off are crime families; and a lot of the rest would be as well. Joe Biden can talk to anyone he wants. What he can't do is take a bride to push legislation. There's ZERO evidence that he even discussed business with Hunter's clients, let alone that he took bribe(s) to push anything benefiting Hunter's clients.
Exactly, silly Feds asking addicts of a controlled substance to sustain from owning a firearm. If that was important, they would prosecute - right?
You're likely being sarcastic, but it does seem like a silly question. The other questions ask about things for which there are records. It's like asking if the person is an alcoholic (interestingly, they don't ask). You would need corroborating witnesses at the time of the signing. It's not like there's a graph available in the person's phone's Health app that logs when they are high or hammered. Then there's the fact the Substance Use Disorder (drug addiction/alcoholism) is chronic, so when are you 'cured'?
The truth is, most illegal gun possession, even when the weapon is confiscated, never get prosecuted. One might rightly ask, why have these gun possession laws if there is little intent to enforce them.
because it fools some into thinking they accomplished something effective.
If illegal possession is discovered because a felony is/was committed, it is prosecuted. I'm lenient with gun ownership otherwise, however, I think the lax acquisition laws that result in so many guns ending up in the hands of criminals needs fixing countrywide.
Agreed. I support what they are trying to do with the 4473 question, but what they're actually doing is silly. It's like being stopped by a cop when you are about to leave a state and being asked "Did you speed in my state?" Silly. Require a drug test (and alcohol if that's possible) with a 4473 in the first place.
Do you have stats?
So is it just away to pile up charges on poor people of color?
Do you want a ear on guns like are war on drugs?
Nope. I just noticed that when I read about criminals being apprehended, it will say charged with possession of a gun or gun was legally owned. I am assuming LEOs are doing their jobs.
Your response seems like a non-sequitur. By lenient I mean that a law abiding citizen in possession of a gun is OK. I have guns that I had since I was a kid or inherited, I've not done anything to register them and I see no reason to change that.
Where have I even hinted at such a thing? NJ has tougher acquisition laws than most states. 80% of the guns recovered from crime scenes in NJ come from out-of-state, in neighboring PA, that ratio is more than reversed. These tougher laws don't prevent me from getting any gun I want. It's just a little more effort which pays off with greatly reduced straw purchases. We have the ability to stop a lot of new weapons from ending up in the hands of criminals, we stupidly choose not to do that.
Side note, the little extra effort involved in acquiring a gun seems to substantially lower the successful suicide rate. NJ & CA have tougher acquisition laws and lowest rates. About 7 years ago, guys discovered they could rent a gun at a range and we had 3 suicides at ranges local to me in less than a year. They would rent a pistol, use the free lesson to learn how to use it, and then blow their brains out. The ranges stopped this by refusing to rent a gun to single guys 18-25 who did not have a Firearms ID. It really doesn't take much to make a difference; imagine what unleashing American Ingenuity on this problem could do.
I thought Hunter was a coke addict?
He's that, and more.
I gave him about 30 seconds of my time. Laughed at his lying face and changed the channel.
For the umpteenth time:
America's fascists have demonstrated over and over that they will never deviate from their objective of replacing democracy with dictatorship. No law, no proof, no argument will ever touch them.
The only way to preserve democracy is to win elections - to crush the fascists at the polls - again and again until they all die of old age.
I agree. There is no "compromise" to be made with MAGA. They have to be defeated.
Why do you even bother to listen to a very small group of idiots?
Their chances of success is zero.
Not so small. Tens of millions. Lots of them here on NT.
Right?
You have an extremely wild imagination.
Of course not, don't be silly.
I will give you credit for that post--it is far better than the junk about 'fascists'!
Do you feel a need for instruction on fascism? That's surprising. I'd supposed that you have very intimate knowledge of them.
Your instruction? You have shown with your overuse that your knowledge on the subject is next to zilch.
Perhaps a need to instruct others on proper word usage.
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan