Trump’s Guilty Verdict

As the entire world knows by now, Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts this week. The internet is blowing up as both sides of the political divide are attempting to leverage this event into political advantage. More Spock attempts to look at things rationally rather than emotionally, but I’ll admit that one human emotion did hit me when I heard the news. Sadness. Not because I’m a Trump fan – I’m not. It’s because the country and its political process has hit a new low.

The 1796 presidential election was the first that was hotly contested. After George Washington chose not to seek a 3rd term, the two political parties of the day, lead by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, began the process of mudslinging that continues to this day. An anonymous author named Phocion published a piece in a popular Philadelphia newspaper that accused Jefferson of having an affair with one of his slaves, declared that Jefferson had run from British troops, and was planning on emancipating all slaves if elected. Jefferson’s camp responded in kind by declaring that Adams planned to make himself King and designate his son as his successor. They nicknamed Adams “His Rotundity” because of his weight. It’s worth noting that Adams did not declare himself king and Jefferson did not emancipate slaves when each was President.

Not much has changed. In recent U.S. elections Democrats claimed that Trump colluded with Russia, Trump, like Adams, was/is determined to become a dictator, while Republicans claimed that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are crooks who used their office for personal gain. These sound much like the narratives around the 1796 election (won by Adams) and the 1800 election (won by Jefferson).

What makes the Trump trials different than traditional campaign tactics like spinning the truth or outright lying about an opponent is that this is the first time a presidential candidate has been arrested and brought to trial during an election cycle.

The phrase, “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” is sometimes attributed to Joseph Stalin although it was most likely uttered by Lavrentiy Beria, one of his underlings. This approach is common in communist countries or those run by dictators with absolute power. Putin’s treatment of political adversary Alexei Navalny, is a modern example of this tactic. Peron (Argentina), Pinochet (Chile), Chavez (Argentina), the Kim family (North Korea) and Xi (China) all followed the Stalin model of arresting, trying and convicting political rivals.

Perhaps it’s a coincidence that as a growing segment within the Democratic party has more directly embraced Marxist rhetoric and principles in the last decade or so that this barrage of legal activity against Trump has emerged. But the timing and nature of the four criminal and three civil trials Trump was facing early in an election year, each brought forward by Democrat attorney generals, make it easy to accept the argument that they are politically motivated. That Democrats are the first to use this tactic could point to the influence of those in the progressive wing who don’t ascribe to traditional post-enlightenment western values.

Jonathon Turley, law professor at George Washington University and legal commentator on Fox News has popularized the term, “lawfare,” which is the use of the legal system to damage or delegitimize a political opponent. Now that this tactic has been introduced into the American political system, how long do you think it will be before a Democratic candidate is dragged in front a jury in Texas or some other red state on some charges Democrat supporters consider lawfare? It’s inevitable.

While it is interesting to listen to the legal pundits on Fox or CNN comment on the merits of the cases and Trump’s likely guilt or innocence, the ramifications of these trials are negative for the country regardless of the trials’ legal merits or outcomes. Deciding that someone poses such a dire threat to democracy and the world that we’re justified in finding some way to put him in jail reminds me of the stereotypical cop who says, “he may not have done this crime, but he’s done something.” Society has rejected that stereotype that lead to too many black kids winding up in prison, but nearly half the country is celebrating the same outcome in Trump’s case, not realizing the potential long-term effects.

In 228 years we’ve gone from mudslinging and dirty politics to seemingly constant impeachments or threats of impeachments to now politicizing the justice system. The first is the price you pay for having a free society. Citizens are responsible to ferret out the truth in a sea of disinformation. The second is annoying, but also part of the political system. But the third shift is different. The judicial branch of government is supposed to be apolitical. Its symbols are scales and lady justice wearing a blindfold to represent its objectivity. When we allow our politicians to politicize law enforcement and the court system, it only leads to a cycle of revenge, or the emergence of a one-party system that leads to the abandonment of a democratic republic.

It’s sad.