The indictment of former President Donald Trump has created a perilous situation—perilous for Trump, to be sure, but perilous especially for the nation. One need not be a Trump fan to share the view that trying him for allegedly committing a sordid but trivial offense—a misuse of funds to pay off a woman with whom he’d had an affair—could dangerously strain the bonds of national unity.
If that sounds like an exaggeration, consider the contrasting readings of the situation served up by the New York Times and the Washington Post. When the country’s two leading liberal newspapers—both of them highly vocal and confirmed critics of Trump—can’t agree on the pros and cons of pursuing this particular case against him, what can we expect from his substantial body of faithful followers?
Editorials in both papers pointed out that the events now unfolding are unprecedented. For the first time ever, a former president has been indicted by a grand jury and will stand trial. Both newspapers also insisted on the necessity of treating Trump fairly. And, that rather obvious point having been made, agreement then petered out.
Start with the case brought against Trump by New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The Times conceded that other proceedings against him in other venues involve “more serious matters” such as attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and instigating the January 6, 2021 mob assault on the U.S. Capitol. With that said, however, the paper expressed no caveats about what the district attorney is doing.
The Post sized up the situation differently. Although Bragg’s case is “legally plausible,” the newspaper said, courts may not think so. “What’s more,” it continued, “the potential campaign finance charge itself is shaky [and] a failed prosecution over the hush-money payment could put them all [i.e., the other cases] in jeopardy.”
Beyond the legal question, there is the larger question of whether the New York action against Trump is a political act. The Times editorial insisted repeatedly that it isn’t, and it accused Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy of seeking to “politicize the indictment” by charging District Attorney Bragg with being politically motivated.
Leaving aside individuals’ motives, however, the position of the Times ignores the self-evidently political character of this whole episode. This is no classroom argument about legal fine points, but bare-knuckle combat and political to the core.
Which brings us to the big question: Does trying a former president on the dubious matters being pursued by Bragg pose an unacceptable threat to national unity? The New York Times acknowledged that prosecuting Trump on these grounds “will no doubt widen existing political divisions that have so damaged the country in recent years.” But the cost of not prosecuting, the newspaper maintained, would be “higher still.”
The Post, having expressed doubts about the New York case, hedged its conclusion: “Public perception and political strategy shouldn’t dissuade a district attorney from bringing a solid case, but neither should they persuade him to bring a shaky one.”
Americans rightly cherish the principle of equality under the law. That mustn’t change. But neither should we adopt the noxious practice, observable elsewhere, of routinely trying and jailing—or worse—old leaders whenever their opponents come to power. Dislike of Trump, though intense in some quarters, is not sufficient grounds for departing from the prudent American custom of letting bygones be bygones.
And if he’s to be prosecuted, make it for something proportionate to the uproar that will cause.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Mr. Shaw is right, of course.
He could also have pointed out that the crime Trump is accused of committing — misappropriating campaign funds — is one that the Hillary Clinton was proven to have actually committed during the 2016 campaign.
Money was funneled through the Hillary campaign’s legal firm, Perkins Coie, in order to compile the bogus Steele dossier for the purpose of fraudulently affecting the 2016 election.
Was Hillary criminally indicted for those two serious offenses — misappropriation of funds and inviting foreign intervention in our electoral process?
Nope. The FEC just fined her $100,000 — a slap on the wrist.
Compare and contrast.
And then ask yourself why.
There is nothing wrong in principle with prosecuting politicians, including former (and current! ) presidents for genuine offenses against the nation, blatant corruption and ordinary felonies that would land anyone else in prison. Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Biden have all deserved to have the book thrown at them for their multiple crimes. The charges against Trump in this case, and the others that are being contemplated, are absurd and probably don’t even rise to the level of the sort of technical violation that nearly everyone “commits” weekly. Comrade Beria would certainly be proud of Alvin Bragg, or more likely, the people who tell Fat Alvin (moderators, he is called that in NYC) what to do.
As dangerous a precedent that this sets, it is all about campaign fund raising. Politicians knowing that they can get people to open up their pocketbooks if they appeal to their outrage and hatred, in this case, the anti-Trump folks; maybe in the very near future, the anti-Biden folks. But in the end, it is all about money. All the while the good of our country falls apart before our very eyes.
Trump may finally be held accountable for some of his misdeeds. Trump deserves his right of “innocent until proven guilty”. The 34 criminal indictments were clear that Trump and his cohorts used campaign funds, a misdemeanor, to commit a felony by providing hush money for his sexual escapades. It was not a “TRIVIAL offense—a misuse of funds to pay off a woman with whom he’d had an affair—could dangerously strain the bonds of national unity.” Trump incites his toxic “base” by hurling disparaging remarks at the Judge and the DA’s wives never issued before. He continues with his “bully pulpit with full media coverage. He bellowed that if he was indicted “there would be DEATH and DESTRUCTION”. My family has been lifetime Republicans, but those statement reveals who Trump really is. One might think he would be governing from behind bars!
Care to discuss the Clintons and the Bidens? They both make Trump look like a petty crook. Heck, in the 1980s, the MSM (Sam Donaldson, Connie Chung, et al), laughed at Biden and declared his political career dead because he was a rude, crude, bullying liar. And now?
The problem is not that Trump is actually innocent (I’m not making that argument), but that so many leftist politicians who are clearly corrupt (in so many ways) are given a free pass.
IS THE PICTURE REALLY SO ONE-SIDED?
1. Is it really true that the Clintons were not investigated or punished for crimes?
2. Bill Clinton lied under oath in a lawsuit, and that led to him being impeached by the House and tried in the Senate. In the end, the senators voted to not remove Clinton from office, but his reputation is forever ruined. He was proven to be a liar and an adulterer. No one respects him anymore.
3. Hillary Clinton, one week before the 2016 presidential election, suffered having the director of the FBI holding a press conference to announce that the FBI was reopening the investigation into her emails. Many think this announcement led to her losing that election.
3. By contrast, the FBI was, at the very same time, investigating Mr. Trump for possible illegal activities, but made no public announcement about that fact. So the public, right before the election, was informed that Hillary Clinton may have committed serious federal crimes, but was not informed that Mr. Trump and/or his close political associates may have committed serious federal crimes. Was that fair?
4. I believe it has been announced that the Department of Justice is investigating the activities of Biden’s son, who is clearly a sleaze bag and dope fiend. Biden’s son clearly used his father’s name to get high paying “consulting” jobs with foreign companies. Whether this crossed the line into a crime is unclear. Being a sleaze bag and making promises to foriegners isn’t always a crime.
4. President Trump ordered his Attorney General to investigate the FBI agents who investigated Trump’s Russia connections, and as I recall a couple FBI agents were put on trial in this matter, but both were found not guilty by juries. Weren’t these prosecutions purely political, with Conservatives using the Department of Justice and the federal judicial process to investigate and prosecute Liberals?
Fair points, Gus, to some degree. The Clintons have gotten away with a great deal. #3, I think, undersells just how bad that entire “investigation” was handled. (I find it humorous how The Atlantic, hardly a conservative rag, matter-of-factly refers to “classic Clinton scandals” in outlining the numerous such scandals over the decades.)
#4 is important, because I think the evidence of Biden corruption (both Joe and Hunter) is far and beyond anything Trump ever did. (Even The Hill, which hates Trump, readily admits that there are serious and likely criminal problems there.)
Will it ever come out? I doubt it.
But, again, my main point is that our political class–left and right alike–are The Problem. And I don’t see it improving anytime soon.
Investigation into her emails? What about the coverup of her actual collusion with Russia and the contrived fiction of Trump’s collusion with Russia, a falsehood that was repeated hundreds of times by a media acting as though it were a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party?
Why should fictions of illegal activities by Trump be “publicized” and blatant crimes by Hillary Clinton be ignored, which number many times more than her willfully destroyed incriminating emails, both before and after the election?
Good retort to such far right PAP. This publication is too Trumpish and will not receive my donation.
Too funny. And to think that I just watched a video of an SSPXer (and LifeSiteNews writer) lambasting Catholic World Report as being “liberal” and “hysterical”, comparing it to CNN and the NYTimes.
The truth (if you actually care about such things) is that the many CWR contributors (hundreds overall, dozens who are regulars) have varying views about Donald Trump, ranging from very negative (see George Weigel, for example) to somewhat positive. If you think that any sort of reasonable, measured take on Trump that refuses to damn him to hell is a sign of “far right PAP,” the problem is you, not CWR.
Good argument. However, as a Catholic, I will not vote for a violent liar who incited the attempted coup on our bastion of Democracy, our seat of government, the US Capitol. Proof, Trump was begged by family members, his daughter Ivanka, his son Donald Jr, Speaker McCarthy, Mark Meadows, and Fox liars while he watched on TV, as a coward, the insurrection unfold.
An attempted coup??? With no guns??? Really? My CAT could conduct a better attempted “coup”. Trump asked his followers to peacefully gather; its on TAPE. Your statement is utter nonsense. By contrast. Democrats have been abusing our rights, our govt agencies and the law for some time now.And funny how they ALWAYS oppose voter ID. Wonder why??
Liar? How about the falsehoods in your allegations? Trump used his money, not campaign funds to put an end to phony allegations, no crime at all. And who are you to falsely accuse him of having had an affair? Were you there? And who are you to characterize his supporters as “a toxic base?” The Judge, in this legal farce, should obviously recuse himself for his past hate-filled public statements about Trump, not to mention a display of judicial misconduct in threatening a “gag order” on a former President subject to a sham trial.
Incidentally, the rioting elements at the Capital were led by Antifa, BLM, and other left wing groups.
Amen. Trump has brought all of this on himself. He is a brazen liar and a criminal who flouts the rule of law. I am only sorry that it is taking the U.S. Department of Justice so long to charge him with his federal crimes which are far more serious.
To morganD:
The indictment is a complete joke. Honest legal experts from Andrew McCarthy (more conservative) to Jonathan Turley (more moderate) to Alan Dershowitz (more liberal) have all pointed out how DA Bragg didn’t even include the necessary underlying crime that Trump is being charged with, which is absurd.
See in particular Andrew McCarthy’s devastating critique of the “indictment” which demonstrates how utterly despicable it is and an abuse of the law. It can be found at:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/braggs-indictment-even-fails-as-an-indictment/
Since you are also touting your Catholicism, which is good, check out the Church’s moral teachings on rash judgment and jumping to conclusions without having sufficient evidence or any evidence to do so. Also check out Church teaching on supporting politicians who claim to be pro-choice when in fact they support and promote the despicable violence of abortion, like Catholics President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and others. Good luck.
HEAR HEAR…the indictment should have happened a long time ago.
This apparent bogus prosecution of Trump is likely, in this writer’s perception, a signal of more to come for Trump supporters [some hunted down many Trump’s attorneys, advisors] and anyone who opposes, even disagrees with the ‘regime’. Its leftist ideologues like the former Soviets are locked into their agenda of radical transformation of the US.
They’re increasing attacks on Catholic churches across the Nation. Virtually no Dept of Justice response. We’re libeled as oppressors of human rights in our defense of the right to life. Homes invaded by FBI swat teams, a pro life father arrested at gunpoint in front of his terrified wife and kids. Added to this is lack of support from a Vatican that has indicated affinity with the ideals of George Soros and Bill Gates.
As we enter Holy Week we may offer our distress with the sufferings of Christ with hope for a moral conversion of America.
St. Theresa of Calcutta stated awhile back that a nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.
What we are witnessing is the unraveling of our culture. Make certain you advise your children and grandchildren to plan accordingly.
The Church should wash its hands of politics completely and focus entirely on spreading the teachings of Christ. Catholics have one allegiance to God, not to any political party. Matters not what politicians do, Catholics follow the teachings of Christ.
As they take money from those on our payroll we have to be involved or at least cognizant. e.g., They tell the nuns they have to pay for birth control so we must respond.
In MI we are fighting the state to not make it illegal to fire Church workers, like teachers, who do not live a lifestyle in conformity with the Church’s teachings/Gospel etc..
It matters very much what they do; I wish I were wrong!
We want to be free to
do so,that’s why we have to be involved in politics.
After the phrase culture wars was tossed around a few years during the Reagan administration people became tired of it and claimed it was a fiction because the concept made them nervous. Elitist culture exists as a pseudo-religion. It comforts those convinced of their moral superiority while practicing moral nihilism while demonizing those whose pursuit of virtue is a living rebuke to their systemic hypocrisy.
Well now the culture of the elitist religious left has won their tyrannical revolution in a formerly free America, and they’re on the brink of winning the same destructive control in the Church.
Of course we mourn what Franklin warned could be lost: “A republic, if you can keep it.” But ought we really mourn a nation that has rejected both God and reason? The insanity grows more vigorously as day follows day.
Without God on our side, we don’t stand a chance of winning any battle for a country or for a Church.
That having been said, however, it seems likely that the tide of blood and treasure will continue to flow from the Church and from the country while the battle rages. Let us not be deluded: Demons will do as they have always done. Mustering their best subterfuge, ambiguity, and confusion, they will vanquish as many as turn to their side. They will attempt to prolong and exacerbate chaos and death. The Lord has determined the length of time He has given them.
China bides its time to offer ‘liberation.’ Will the people of the U.S. or the West then wake up to prove themselves a citizenry worthy of His providence? Can we love and strive diligently enough so as to see His face? Is He in us enough?
Prosecution or persecution?
The accusers are so much more grotesque than the accused (and, yes, Trump is not perfect, nor am I or you). One can see the lack of a formed conscience when hypocrisy has no impact or effect; they condemn (and persecute) in others the faults they embrace and extol in themselves. The church has been AWOL since it restructured itself to “accompany” Modern Man. It’s not that I blame the Church per se, there were a lot of dark forces operating on the substructures of society, politics, entertainment, media, etc. beginning, at least, in the mid-1950’s. It’s just that the church began becoming indifferent to these influences and now almost partakes of them herself. I get nauseated when I pull into the parking lot of my local NO Parish lot and see all the Biden or Obama bumper stickers. How can it be an oasis from the world when those that attend get justification by the church in the manner in which they vote?
No one is above the law. Let the law run its course. Do not rationalize or hype against because the one facing it is a preferred politician.
Well, that’s assuming that the law is actually running its course, rather than certain AGs running the law. I am not a Trump fan; I view him as I view almost all politicians: mostly arrogant, feckless, and reckless. But there’s an obvious difference between how he has been treated for the past several years with how the Biden family (never mind the law-challenged Clintons) is treated–not just by the media but by the establishment and the “law”. It’s blatant.
To A.C. Dee: No one is indeed above the law. This also pertains to prosecutors and district attorneys who wrongly campaign on getting somebody because he is the preferred politician to go after.
Honest legal experts from Andrew McCarthy (more conservative) to Jonathan Turley (more moderate) to Alan Dershowitz (more liberal) have all pointed out how DA Bragg didn’t even include the necessary underlying crime that Trump is being charged with, which is absurd.
See Andrew McCarthy’s devastating critique of the “indictment” which demonstrates how utterly despicable it is and an abuse of the law. It can be found at:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/braggs-indictment-even-fails-as-an-indictment/
And just so you know, McCarthy served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993 to 1999, and he was the Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District’s satellite office, responsible for federal law enforcement in six counties north of New York City from 1999 through 2003.
McCarthy has also won numerous awards, including the Justice Department’s highest honors: the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award (1996) and Distinguished Service Award (1988).
He has also served as an adjunct law professor at Fordham University and New York Law School.
I daresay he understands the law, especially New York law, much better than DA Bragg who is indeed abusing the law and acting as if he is above it.
I’m sure P Lincoln broke a few laws preserving the Union.
I’d like to see a jury dissect where the Bidens came up with their wealth.
True, Trump’s prosecution is divisive, but I believe that by this we can show the world that our democracy is not inferior but in fact better that those who have done so in the recent past. France has done it with former President Sarkozy, Israel with then former Prime Minister Netanyahu, or South Africa with former President Zuma. I look forward to us beating South Korea who prosecuted and convicted not one but five former Presidents.
Of the state ex-leaders who got prosecuted, you failed to mention Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula, Israel’s Ehud Olmert, Malaysia’s Najib Razak, Bolivia’s Jeanine Anez, and Thailand’s Yingluck Shinawatra, of the most recent ones worldwide. The drama surrounding Trump’s prosecution is also very much due to it being the first time for the U.S.. Once Trump is convicted or not and more ex-Presidents follow, we’ll get used to it.
We’re actually a Republic and not a pure Democracy.
(search Heritage Foundation they wrote on this a couple years ago)
WHAT ABOUT MORALS?
1. On the one hand, Mr. Trump is pretty obviously being prosecuted because of his past activities in political office, and his possible future activities in political office, and this is being done by people who fear and loathe Mr. Trump’s political activism.
2. On the other hand, it seems very obvious that Mr. Trump did have an adulterous affair with a woman who was and is infamous for acting in X-rated pornographic videos (such videos being one of the leading destroyers of Western culture and morals).
3. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that Mr. Trump did engage in an elaborate scheme of making fraudulent business records in order to transfer $130,000 to that woman in order to covertly induce her to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement concerning the sexual activities of Mr. Trump and this woman.
4. If you or I file fraudulent business records with the government, there would usually be some sort of penalty.
5. So, if you or I should be penalized, why not a billionaire or the famous or the powerful? Does the Constitution have some sort of exception clause for billionaires or the famous or the powerful?
6. Mr. Trump has said in writing, in his own book, that he has had sexual intercourse with women who were married to other men.
7. Here is the quote from Mr. Trump’s 2017 book titled “Think Big and Kick Ass”: “I have been able to date (screw) them all because I have something that many men do not have. I don’t know what it is but women have always liked it. … Beautiful, famous, successful, married—I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names … The one thing I have learned with women over the years—they want it (sex!) more than we do.”
8. We need a Conservative and Godly man in the White House.
9. We need to get the Woke maniacs and destroyers out of all positions of leadership in government (and in the Church).
10. But by Christian standards, Mr. Trump is clearly morally unqualified to hold any public office.
11. There are so many good, honest, moral, decent, prudent, Godly Conservative leaders out there, in our country.
12. Why latch onto this very openly and unapologetically corrupt man, Mr. Trump?
Errata:
1. Above I wrote: “Mr. Trump’s 2017 book titled ‘Think Big and Kick Ass’.”
2. Actually, that book by Mr. Trump was first published in 2007, not 2017. It has had several reprintings since 2017, and was a bestseller in 2015.
3. In later printings, the title on the cover was reduced to “Think Big,” with “Kick Ass” removed from the cover. However, the text of the book inside remained the same, and the phrase “kick ass” is retained in the text of the book.
4. Aside: I think this book is the one place where Donald Trump most openly, directly, and fully describes, in his own words, his philosophy of life, his conception of morals and ethics, his reason for living, and so on.
5. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to get a glimpse into the soul of Donald Trump.
6. And remember: This book contains his own words, published by him, when he was 61 years old.
It is becoming more obvious that there will be a Trump Library for a man that doesn’t read.
Your comments reveal a lot about what is lacking in those versions of Christianity that are so anxious to demonize an easy target they can’t even account for an accurate accounting of personal history. The book was written in 2007 not 2017, for which I suspect you were intentionally misleading. Trump’s soul is revealed in having publicly renounced his past, since that book was written, as a playboy reprobate, which also includied pro-abortion beliefs, into the man whose reformed pro-life actions has saved more lives than any individual in human history. Christians who are Christians used to recognize and welcome repentance and reform.
Clarification:
1. In the quote above from Donald Trump, it is Donald’s own book text that puts “screw” in parathesis right behind the word “date.”
2. Think about that. Sixty-one year old Donald wanted his readers to know clearly that he had had sexual intercourse with ladies married to other men, not that he had merely dated them.
Hi Gus,
In what editions and on what page can we find the quote you cite?
Thanks.
Don’t take his word. He’s being dishonest. That book was written in 2007, and Trump publicly renounced those elements that only the sanctimonious prefer to cling to.
DOUBLE STANDARDS, UNJUST SCALES, & THE WARNING OF THE PROPHETS?
1. The title of this opinion essay by the esteemed longtime servant of the Church, Mr. Russell Shaw, is “The perils of the unprecedented prosecution of Donald Trump.”
2. I think Mr. Shaw’s concern is what many now call the “weaponization of government” for political purposes.
3. But the people who are now concerned about the weaponization of government for political purposes in regards to Mr. Trump’s indictment yesterday in New York City–were these people concerned about the weaponization of government for political purposes when President Trump tried in a phone call to use the withholding of military aid to pressure the president of Ukraine to open a criminal investigation into Joe Biden?
4. The Sacred Scriptures are full of condemnations of judging with double standards, with one standard of measure or evaluation for self and allies, and with another standard of measure or evaluation for outsiders, rivals, enemies.
5. For example: Proverbs 20:23: “The Lord detests double standards; He is not pleased by dishonest scales.”
6. The Hebrew Prophets, Isaiah, Micah, Ezekiel, etc., spend much of their time condemning kings and other people who espoused the Righteousness of God but in fact secretly indulged many sins by themselves and their allies while condemning the same sins done by opponents.
7. There is no chance of Constitutional and Godly government surviving if the political parties take the view that their own party members can commit no crimes and members of opposing parties can do nothing but commit crimes.
8. Isn’t this true?
The press is not a branch of government. All presumed guilt is tried in the judicial. No presumed guilt should be trivialized or overlooked. If there is a price to pay, it must be paid. No politician is above or beyond the law. If our laws are enforced, perhaps we will have honest people running for office.About time, don’t you think?
We are witnessing today.Another tenet of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.Which of course is dedicated to Lucifer.
To LJ.
NPR: Yes, some Capitol Rioters Were Armed. Prosecutors Say They Used Military-style AR15s.
NBC: Jan. 13, 2021, 1:12 PM EST
By Allan Smith
House Republicans on Wednesday defied the newly installed metal detectors at the entrance to the chamber for the second day in a row ahead of the vote on whether to impeach President Donald Trump.
Trivial? Do you think he loves his country as much as he loves his wife?
Mr. Shaw,
Your name is coming up frequently in one chapter of Cowdan-Guido’s Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod on VCII implementation. Did you know?
That must have been quite an immersive type job….I imagine it must have been something like baptism by fire, flood, or blood….
https://www.appealslawgroup.com/prosecutorial-misconduct/
It is important to note that it is the duty of the Court to prove its case within the Law, so any case where the facts are intentionally denied, in order to deny due process, such as for example, it is not possible for a human person to conceive a son or daughter who is not, in essence, a human person, would, in fact, be an error in substantive and thus due process Law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misrepresentation