We Asked Our Politics Editor To Explain Trump's Third Indictment
Guys, We're Worried About Our Politics Editor
Earlier this summer, our Politics Editor walked us through the details of President Trump’s second indictment. Now that the 45th / 47th president has been indicted for a third time, we wanted an update from our in-house expert.
We’ll start with the same question as last time. What can you tell us about this new legal hurdle for President Trump?
[Sighing] Okay, sure. For the third time this year, President Donald J. Trump has been charged with crimes. The four new federal counts include:
Conspiracy to defraud the United States;
Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (the Electoral College count);
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and,
Conspiracy against rights — meaning voting rights.
Those sound big.
They are.
Care to elaborate?
Not really.
Why not?
Well, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination has now been charged with 74 — sorry, 78 — crimes. He’ll still be the nominee. We can get into the weeds if you want, but really that’s all it is.
Won’t the new charges affect his re-election campaign?
They might. Then again, he can always pardon himself when he wins.
He can do that?
[Shrugging] Probably.
What do you mean, “probably”?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but constitutional law is mostly about who can do the most clever wordplay with the text. Who can write a little zinger or whatever. So a case might go to the Supreme Court, but—
Oh, good! Checks and balances will kick in, and we’ll be in the clear.
Yeah, I’m not really sure you understand how the Supreme Court works. It’s nine unelected people with lifetime tenure and literally no binding code of ethics. President Trump appointed a third of those justices himself.
But Chief Justice John Roberts says they simply call balls and strikes.
Chief Justice John Roberts says a lot of things. In 2013, he said that racism was over so we didn’t need the Voting Rights Act anymore.1 This year, he said that testifying to Congress about a code of ethics would threaten the separation of powers.2
Chief Justice John Roberts is not very bright. That’s the most generous interpretation of his words and actions that I can give.
So the Supreme Court is not a reliable safeguard here, is what you’re saying.
I mean, maybe? If President Trump had tried to hire a graphic designer for a gay wedding, then yes — this Supreme Court would be interested in hearing a case against him. But he merely tried to overturn an election. So probably not.
What about the Senate?
What about them?
For accountability. Checks and balances, etc.
[Laughing] Yeah, I’m sure the Democrats are all over that. Let me ask you something: does Dianne Feinstein know she’s still a senator?
It wouldn’t need to be Democrats. The U.S. Senate is where partisan differences are set aside in favor of constitutional order.
[Laughing so hard he struggles to get words out] Oh man, that’s so good. I needed that, thank you.
Well, you’re making it sound like we don’t have any options.
I don’t know what to tell you. You can vote against him all you want, but because of the Electoral College, Donald Trump has to lose by around 5 million votes before there’s even a 50-50 chance he loses the presidency too.3
[Sliding a piece of paper across the table] It’s probably a good time to turn this in.
What is this?
It’s a resignation letter.
Are you serious?
I can’t do this job anymore, man. I gotta get out. Raise some alpacas or something. Whatever Isabella Rossellini does on her farm. That kind of stuff.
But what if there’s a fourth indictment, and we need you to explain it?
I can give you my analysis up front: Donald Trump will face no consequences of any kind for anything he’s done, ever.
There is not a single crime he could commit that would persuade a majority of Republicans not to vote for him.4 There is not a single branch of government that is interested in holding him accountable.
That’s it? You can’t end on a more positive note?
I can wish us luck.
…
…
Okay, fine.
Good luck!
Shelby County v. Holder: “Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, ‘[v]oter turnout and registration rates’ in covered jurisdictions ‘now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.’”
Huge win for civil rights: approaching parity!
He declined a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about the Court’s many, many, many, many corruption scandals. Turns out, you can just do that!
As FiveThirtyEight pointed out ahead of the 2020 election, “Biden’s chances [of winning the Electoral College] only become pretty certain if he wins by more than 5 points nationally” — in other words, by 8 million votes. Needless to say, this disadvantage does not cut both ways.
The logic has something to do with Bill Clinton being an asshole, which he was. As I understand it, Bill Clinton was a predator in 1995, so no Republican can be held accountable for anything, anytime, ever.