I am weary of watching videos of an outraged Donald Trump complaining about election interference. Trump argues that the civil and criminal cases brought against him are politically motivated. Trump tells us that the cases would not have been brought if he were not running for president. Really? Most of us are not buying that argument. But is Trump, right? Would anyone else who committed the same business fraud of inflating property values to get more favorable loan rates have been prosecuted?
Last weekend, I reflected on “election interference” and concluded that the Trump legal proceedings meet the definition. They are distracting voters from critical issues that should be the focus of a presidential election–things like the economy, healthcare, education, civil rights, crime, and border security. But I also concluded that it was Trump, not the prosecutors and justice system that is attempting to hold him accountable, that is to blame.
Jack Smith, Fani Willis, Letitia James, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg likely thought about who they were investigating or indicting when they made their prosecutorial decisions to pursue Trump. They may have been thinking, “Somebody had to do something to stop Trump from returning to power.” But, most likely, they were also thinking, “Given what Trump did, he must be prosecuted.”
In his first 15 months as New York DA, Bragg and his team filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 people or companies. Under his predecessor, former DA Cyrus Vance, in contrast, it took three years to charge about the same amount of business felonies.
“Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved into the marble above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. The meaning of the phrase is obvious, but it also means that justice is not equal if accountability can be evaded by running for president.
The Constitution of the United States is deficient in not eliminating eligibility to run for president for anyone who faces a pending indictment for a felony under federal law. Such a provision would have nipped Trump’s scary attempt to return to office in the bud. If the Constitution restricts eligibility to run for president to people above age 35 who are naturally born citizens and have lived in the United States for 14 years, the Founding Fathers could have gone one step further and blocked people accused of serious crimes from running for president.
Naysayers, most of them supporters of the ex-president, will point out that such a modification to the Constitution would create the possibility of political opponents conjuring up phony charges and indicting candidates to block their elections. Such a scenario can be imagined, especially under a future Trump administration, but is unlikely in normal times. The party that engaged in such a stunt would be condemned by voters.
Imagine, for a moment, that Donald Trump was a patriot who loved the Constitution and democracy. That Trump would reflect on the 2024 campaign and realize that the biggest elephant in the room (the age of the two leading candidates being the second biggest) is preempting a discussion of issues and would drop out.
We are not hearing enough about the issues voters want to discuss, which is one reason many voters are checking out. Unless you are a political junkie, Trump’s efforts to have Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis removed from the Trump case in Georgia is boring. Equally boring are the asset valuation issues at the heart of Trump’s business fraud case in New York—the one where Judge Erdogan found Trump liable for more than $453 million dollars. Many voters shrug their shoulders and say, “Don’t all businesspeople cheat?” or “That has nothing to do with me!”
After months of watching Trump’s 2024 campaign, voters are waking up to the fact that Trump is portraying himself as a victim of an unjust legal system in his campaign. Few voters read the detailed and often bizarre policy proposals that the Trump campaign has put forward. If Trump is not talking much about them, why should voters read them?
Give Trump a stage, and you will hear the words witch hunt, deranged, sick, Trump hater, corrupt, and, of course, election interference repeatedly. If you are unfortunate enough to get a campaign solicitation from Trump, it will be more about his legal problems than about anything else. The main references to President Biden will be about his corruption and age. If policies are discussed, you will read about the Southern border being overrun, wokeness, crime, and very few other things. (If you were Trump, you would not want to talk about the economy, except for inflation, either.)
Imagine, for a moment, a 2024 election season where Trump was not running. Such a campaign would be different. President Biden’s age would still be an issue, but discussions of policy would be unavoidable. America would be on track for a better, more substantive election.
Trump’s legal problems, if you think about it, are the elephant in the 2024 room. They are the election interference, and one person is responsible for it—Donald Trump. Any decent human being facing the mountain of legal problems Trump faces would realize that discussion of the problems would preempt discussion of significant issues. Trump is not a decent human being. He could give a damn about something other than himself. He does not.
Trump could make the election interference referenced in his victimization campaign go away by dropping out. He will not.
If we are going to keep Trump out of the White House, we, the voters, must take matters into our own hands. We need to use the right to vote and execute our responsibility as citizens to speak out against a candidate who should not be running for president.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government and other subjects.
Ken Sellards says
Are you daft? Most of the country thinks it’s bullshit. Not sure what country you talking about.
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece. I like to think I’m not daft. My point is that a civic-minded person facing 91 felony charges would not run for president, even if he thought the charges were “bullshit.” Trump could eliminate the election interference by doing something for his country–dropping out of the race.
Please let me also disagree with your comment that most of the country thinks “it’s bullshit.” I am assuming that you believe all of the legal charges against Trump, including those associated with E. Jean Carroll (rape case), the Presidential documents, January 6, and business fraud, are “bullshit.” I have several friends who, despite my best efforts to persuade them otherwise, still support Donald Trump. All of them admit “it is looking bad for Trump” and believe that notwithstanding Trump’s conclusion that communists are behind the various legal actions against him, Trump did engage in business fraud and obstruction of justice. They think Trump is running in the hope he can pardon himself.
Time will tell if Trump returns to power, but it cannot be argued that he hasn’t made an utter mess of the 2024 election by continuing to run despite his legal problems.
Margie Fick says
Yep! I personally think it’s all a crock!
And furthermore, J.E. dean, I am weary of reading all your negative comments.
Bill Anderson says
Mr. Dean, you are a lawyer and I am not, but I feel compelled to inquire of you — to be indicted and tried for fraud, does that not require that one has committed a fraudlent act — one that has defrauded or attempted to defraud another? Mr. Trump apparently did not do so — his property loans have been said to have been paid, fully and on time. Nobody or entity has been disadvantaged by his “fraudlent activities”. On the other hand, the NYC DA and the judge have distinguished themselves, personally and professionally, as individuals with no integrity.
J. Dean says
Judge Erdogan found Trump guilty of fraud under NY Executive Law 63 (12). I suspect you read Donald Trump’s post on his social media platform. Trump, a non-lawyer, opines that New York Executive Law 63(12) is unconstitutional because it does not require a victim. Trump is appealing the verdict against him, so we will see if the appellate court agrees with him.
As I hope you know, Trump has been indicted for multiple felonies, including obstruction of justice, violation of the Presidential Records Act, and violations of campaign finance law in association with his “hush money” in the Stormy Daniels case. Are all of the prosecutors really “individuals with no integrity?” The only thing they have in common is initiating efforts to hold Trump accountable.
James Nick says
Mr Anderson asks: “To be indicted and tried for fraud, does that not require that one has committed a fraudulent act — one that has defrauded or attempted to defraud another… since nobody or entity has been disadvantaged by his ‘fraudulent activities’?”
Generalizing this question, you get: To be indicted and tried for a crime, does that not require that one has committed, or attempted to commit, a crime against another if no one has been injured by the crime?
Setting aside the fact that there are plenty of people serving long prison sentences for attempted murder, rape, and robbery and considering only so-called victimless crimes that Mr Anderson seems to be alluding to, is it not the case that if someone, say, embezzled money from a bank undetected and then returns it later in an act of contrition, that the crime of embezzlement still occurred?
Likewise, if an adult woman sells consensual sex to an adult man by her own free will it is still a crime. She could be found guilty of prostitution and he of solicitation and patronizing. In Texas, for instance, prostitution and patronizing are both considered Class B misdemeanors carrying a maximum six-month jail sentence and/or a maximum $2,000 fine.
Deirdre LaMotte says
I don’t only vote for President. I actually vote for who will have the most competent WH team.
Biden’s team has no leaks, no impromptu firings, no drama. If ish hits the fan, I know this country is in good hands.
Trump’s team was a dumpster fire floating in a hurricane. And he is owned by Putin, whether it was a salacious
visit to Moscow with prostitutes and/or financial. Who cares. Putin wants Trump as his idiot because he knows Trump
does not care about our nation one bit. He will turn it over to the highest bidder.
May those Big Macs go down the wrong way.
neal carter says
It`s a very depressing situation when our options for a leader are limited to such poor choices.
Linda Herron says
Trump will end democracy as we know it to run and if he would win the 2024 election. He should by law be barred from running for office. To not follow the clear reading of the 14th amendment section 3 and bar him because how his fan base would start a civil war, or violent retaliation is allows a criminal and his gang to extort in furtherance of his illegal nefarious disregard of our laws and our constitution and would end democracy. The Doj should have arrested and charged all the Congress and senators who supplied aid and comfort to Trump, and who were directly involved with Jan 6 and the days before and after planning and lieing about the stolen election. All of them should be relieved of their positiond barred and or jailed for their part. Both sides should not back down because it will make ignorant people angry. They are not above the law either.
Gren Whitman says
The perp who attempted to overturn the presidential election by force and chicanery in 2020 now whines about “election interference” in 2024?
Balderdash!
He also allegedly tried to strong-arm the State of Georgia into somehow finding 11,780 non-existent votes, tried to hide classified documents in his Mar-a-Lago bathroom, and bribed a sex worker to conceal his adulterous tryst.
Even though he’s been convicted of sexual assault, libel, and massive business fraud in New York, and told to pay more than half a billion dollars, Trump claims he’s 100% innocent of everything.
If so, why doesn’t he demand to be tried ASAP instead of doing everything he can to delay, delay, delay?