The firmament has shifted.

March 31, 2023

          On Thursday, March 30, 2023, the Manhattan District Attorney confirmed that a grand jury has indicted Donald Trump. With that announcement, the firmament has shifted. For seven frustrating years, we were condemned to wander a landscape in which the crimes of lawless president were litigated in the press through rumors and leaks. Reckless statements and bad faith lies were given flight on cable news. Speculation and innuendo were traded on social media like cigarettes in a prison yard.

          No more. The firmament has shifted.

          The charges and defenses will be contested in a court of law in accordance with New York procedure and rules of evidence. While the landscape of rumors and lies will continue unabated outside the courtroom, statements by counsel in the courtroom must have a good faith basis. If not, the judge will punish the lawyers.

          The firmament has shifted.

          The indictment will be read word-for-word, and Trump will be required to admit or deny the charges in a plea consisting of one word or two: “Guilty” or “Not Guilty.” There will be no incoherent rambling, no oblique calls for violence, no code-words for antisemitism, and no appeals for campaign donations.

          The firmament has shifted.

          Every statement made by Trump on social media or the campaign trail will be a potential admission or effort to obstruct justice. Any rational defendant would curtail his speech to maximize chances of acquittal. Trump will either follow his lawyer’s advice (and minimize the likelihood of conviction) or he will continue apace (and subject himself to new charges of obstruction of justice).

          Of course, we do not know what charges are contained in the sealed indictment. The indictment might charge only misdemeanors. Or it might charge an array of financial crimes connected to the prosecution of the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg.

          Either way, the Manhattan indictment serves a necessary and valuable purpose. Trump will be indicted twice more (at least)—once in Fulton County, Georgia, and at least once in D.C. for insurrection, the false electors’ scheme, and / or unlawful retention of national defense documents. The shock of indicting a former president for the first time occurs only once. For good or ill, Alvin Bragg has accepted that burden to the relief of Fani Willis and Jack Smith.

          The scandal of Trump's indictment for paying hush money to save his presidential campaign is that the DOJ failed to indict Trump in 2018 when Michael Cohen was convicted for helping Trump commit the underlying crime. Bill Barr killed the federal investigation into Donald Trump in 2018, and Merrick Garland failed to pick up the investigation in 2021. So, yes, Bragg’s indictment is late and (according to some) ill-timed. But given the delay of Merrick Garland and Fani Willis, Bragg should not be blamed for proceeding first with the weakest charges that Trump will face.

          The reaction by Republican leaders has been lawless and antisemitic. Earlier this week, Kevin McCarthy refused to comment on the mass killing of schoolchildren in Tennessee because he wanted to “get the facts” before condemning the slaughter of innocents. But without the benefit of seeing the sealed indictment, McCarthy was quick to condemn the unknown charges and to threaten Alvin Bragg.

          McCarthy said,

Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election.

The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.

          Of course, the House of Representatives has no power to hold Bragg “to account.” McCarthy’s statement is a naked attempt to intimidate a prosecutor—and should be investigated by the DOJ as obstruction of justice.

          But the statement by Governor Ron DeSantis was much worse. He said that Florida would “not assist in an extradition request” to transfer Trump to New York “given the questionable circumstances at issue.” DeSantis’s threat was hollow because Trump had already signaled his intention to appear voluntarily in New York. But make no mistake, DeSantis was threatening nothing less than a state-sanctioned effort to harbor a fugitive in violation of state and federal law.

          A man who is running for an office sworn to uphold the US Constitution just demonstrated his manifest unfitness for the presidency. Like his ill-considered description of Russia’s war on Ukraine as a “territorial dispute,” DeSantis’s vow to break the law to protect Trump bordered on rebellion and was monumentally stupid.

          But DeSantis also invoked antisemitism in his refusal to extradite Trump to New York. He twice described Alvin Bragg as being backed by George Soros—a fact of no relevance except as a dog whistle to white supremacists and antisemites everywhere. See ADL, The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories.

          As explained by the ADL,

Even if no antisemitic insinuation is intended, casting a Jewish individual as a puppet master who manipulates national events for malign purposes has the effect of mainstreaming antisemitic tropes and giving support, however unwitting, to antisemites and extremists who disseminate these ideas knowingly and with malice.

          Of course, DeSantis’s references to Soros interfering in Bragg’s investigation were not “unintentional.”  As a presidential candidate whose every word is carefully scripted, DeSantis’s multiple references to Soros were intentional—as were the antisemitic tropes embedded in his statement.

          For the moment, Trump intends to surrender in New York next Tuesday for booking and arraignment. If that happens, it will be a singular moment for the rule of law. It will remind the world that America can hold its leaders to account for their crimes—a proposition that was sorely in need of proof. See op-ed by Dennis Aftergut in Washington Post, By indicting Trump, Alvin Bragg restores our faith in the rule of law.  

          The always-wise Josh Marshall made a point on MSNBC on Thursday evening that should be our guide in the coming days. Marshall urged that we avoid “living inside Donald Trump's drama.” We fell for Trump's dramatic ploy last week when he claimed, “I will be arrested on Tuesday.” He and others will spend endless hours drawing us into conversations that second guess Alan Bragg regarding the timing of the indictment, the charges included (or excluded), the credibility of witnesses, etc.

          The Editorial Board of the Washington Post dove head-first into the Trump psycho-drama with its editorial, The Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president. After listing everything that could go wrong with the prosecution, the Post Editorial Board concludes,

This prosecution needs to be airtight. Otherwise, it’s not worth continuing.

          The Editorial Board’s demand that the case must be “airtight” to be “worth continuing” invokes a standard unknown in western jurisprudence. It is a standard that exists only inside the vortex of Donald Trump's fever dreams—in which the WaPo Editorial Board has become hopelessly mired. We should not repeat their mistake.

          Setting aside the imaginary rules that apply only to the Trump melodrama, here is where we are: Trump has been indicted in New York. He will be tried before a jury of his peers. He will be convicted or acquitted, or the jury will be unable to reach a verdict. It’s that simple. Trump wants to make it a circus to upend the rule of law. Don’t fall into his trap.

          We should avoid living inside the Trumpian drama to the extent we can. The case of the People v. Donald J. Trump will take months or years to unfold. In the meantime, we have federal, state, and local elections to win . . . regardless of what happens in the (first) criminal trial of Donald Trump. Stay the course!

Meanwhile, in Congress.

          As if we needed a reminder of why we must take back the House, GOP led committees put an exclamation point after that proposition on Thursday. In the first instance, GOP. Rep. Barry Loudermilk used the first hearing of his sub-committee on Capitol security to present a sham video that allegedly cleared Loudermilk of giving reconnaissance tours of the Capitol to insurrectionists on January 5^th. See MSNBC / Maddow Blog, Investigating the Jan. 6 investigation, GOP rep exonerates himself.

          Loudermilk’s self-proclaimed “exoneration” presentation failed to address crucial questions like, “Why was he giving tours of the Capitol when it was closed to the public?,” and “Why did his tour include members of the crowd that stormed the Capitol the next day?” Loudermilk must believe that his constituents are idiots who will believe anything he says . . . .

          In the Jim Jordan “weaponization” committee hearing, Jordan allowed two witnesses to “read” their testimony into the record and then walk out of the hearing without being questioned by members of the committee—including Democrats eager to discredit the witnesses. Video of the shameful episode is here, WaPo, Democrats’ anger boils over after GOP witnesses testify without taking questions.

          I urge you to watch the video so you can see for yourself the smirk that plasters Jordan’s face as he lamely tries to explain that Democrats can ask their questions even though the witnesses have departed the hearing. Jordan resorted to such bad-faith tactics because Democrats have been dismantling Republican witnesses in the Weaponization Committee hearings. Jordan decided to avoid a repeat of that embarrassment by allowing the witnesses to flee the room before Democrats were able to cross-examine the witnesses. They have no shame . . . . and we must replace every last one of them!

Republican Judge rules that ACA-mandated free testing for HIV and cancer screening is unconstitutional.

          As noted previously, the federal bench in Texas is on a mission to dismantle as much of the “administrative state” as possible. In the latest example, federal district judge Reed O’Connor ruled the ACA’s requirement of free HIV testing and cancer screening was unconstitutional. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, The lawsuit that threatens everything from cancer screenings to birth control, explained.

          As Millhiser notes,

Five years ago, Judge Reed O’Connor attempted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. His decision striking down Obamacare was widely mocked, even in conservative circles — in the words of one National Review article, O’Connor’s reasoning “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous” — and the decision was eventually reversed by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, on Thursday, O’Connor handed down a new decision that blocks a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires health insurers to cover a wide range of preventive health care services — ranging from cancer screenings to obesity counseling to drugs that prevent the spread of HIV.

          Millhiser explains that the re-configured reactionary majority on the Supreme Court is likely to uphold Judge O’Connor’s ruling. If that happens, large swaths of the ACA will be overruled despite the earlier decision of the Court upholding the ACA’s constitutionality.

          The case of Braidwood Management v. Becerra will be in the news for several years—and may change the face of healthcare as we know it today. Why? Because Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett live in a world where premium healthcare is unaffected by their sham conservative legal principles. They get free healthcare no matter how much they gut Obamacare. Meanwhile, forty million Americans will suffer worse health outcomes, including death, because of the conservative majority’s social Darwinism approach to the law.

          What’s the solution? Enlarge the Court!

A reflection on hope and optimism

          For your weekend reading, I recommend a remarkable op-ed by Amanda Ripley in WaPo, This element is critical to human flourishing — yet missing from the news. (The link should work for everyone.) It is filled with helpful advice about remaining hopeful during difficult times.

          You may be surprised to learn that I receive fairly consistent criticism from readers (including in today’s email!) that my hopeful and optimistic outlook does a disservice to my readers. I am frequently told that I am naïve, and that my optimism lulls people into a false sense of security and inaction. As I frequently respond, “If you tell people that the future is hopeless, they will believe you”—and then what?

           Amanda Ripley addresses some of these criticism in her article, explaining why as a journalist, it is “easier” to adopt a cynical, negative view. She writes,

As a journalist, trying to look smart in story meetings, it always felt safer to remain skeptical. It was easier to pitch stories about buffoonery than about progress. It’s a strange trick of the mind, especially because it’s the news media’s relentless negativity that has led so many people to give up on institutions . . . . . Cynicism feels protective, even when it’s not.

          Being pessimistic is the easy way out—and creates a self-fulfilling doom narrative. Being optimistic is hard. As Ripely writes,

Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion. It’s a cognitive skill, one that helps people reject the status quo and visualize a better way. 

          And for those critics who claim that I ignore bad news and minimize the threats we face, you haven’t been reading the newsletter closely for the last seven years. But there is a difference between recognizing bad news and surrendering to despair. As I told a reader today—with sincere affection—“I am sorry you feel that way. My best advice is that you try not to discourage other people.”

          Optimism is contagious. So is pessimism. If you choose to mediate reality by assuming the worst, that may be the best strategy for you, but it is a poor basis for rallying others to continue the struggle for a better future. If the seemingly relentless bad news of the last week has you down, read Amanda Ripley’s article. She may be able to persuade you to be hopeful, even if I have failed.

Concluding Thoughts.

           On March 7, 1965, John Lewis awoke in a hospital bed with a fractured skull suffered at the hands of white police officers who attacked 600 marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Ten days later, March 17^th, he testified at a federal hearing about those unprovoked beatings—known as Bloody Sunday. Four days later, March 21^st, John Lewis joined 3,200 marchers who resumed the march from Selma to Montgomery.

          In addition to his bravery, John Lewis was driven by unflagging hope. Was he foolish? Or naïve? Did he lull others into a false sense of security or inaction? I am not comparing myself to John Lewis—nor should you. But we can learn from his refusal to give in to despair—even though he had ample reason to do so.

          “Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion.” Exercise it. It will come in handy as we face the challenges to come.

          I will be in touch tomorrow with a short newsletter to open the weekend Comment section.

          Stay strong! Talk to you tomorrow!