When Donald Trump’s lawyers urged a federal appeals court to approve “absolute” presidential immunity last month, they argued that it was necessary to prevent frivolous, politically motivated criminal charges against former presidents. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected that argument, along with the other reasons Trump offered for shielding him from prosecution for trying to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The three-judge panel said the danger Trump perceived “appears slight” given prosecutors’ “ethical obligations” and “additional safeguards,” such as “the right to be charged by a grand jury upon a finding of probable cause.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump, which is now scheduled for trial on March 25, would not have been affected by the immunity that the D.C. Circuit declined to recognize, because it is not based on Trump’s “official acts” as president. But the case shows that prosecutorial ethics and grand juries are no guarantee against partisan manipulation of the criminal justice system.
The legally and morally dubious charges against Trump, which stem from hush money that he paid porn star Stormy Daniels when he was running for president in 2016 to keep her from talking about her alleged affair with him, reinforce his complaint that Democrats are attempting “election interference” in the guise of seeking justice. And because it looks like this case will be tried before any of the other, more substantial criminal cases against Trump, it is apt to color the public’s perception of those cases as well. That likelihood suggests the conspiracy that Trump portrays, which supposedly involves Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis as well as Bragg, is much clumsier than he suggests.
Smith and Willis say Trump unlawfully interfered with the 2020 presidential election by trying to enlist state and federal officials in his efforts to stop Biden from taking office. Trump says Bragg is unlawfully interfering with this year’s presidential election by pursuing bogus criminal charges. Bragg claims Trump unlawfully interfered with the 2016 presidential election by hiding information that might have turned voters against him. Of these three claims, Bragg’s is the least credible.
There was nothing inherently illegal about paying off Daniels. Although the $130,000 payment could be construed as a violation of federal campaign finance law, that interpretation hinges on viewing the hush money as a campaign expense, aimed at securing Trump’s victory, rather than a personal expenditure, aimed at avoiding embarrassment and sparing Melania Trump’s feelings.
Hellbound and Down 