The text of the indictment of Donald Trump provides a compelling chronicle of serious misconduct. It is a remarkable document with internal support from an unusual amount of evidentiary detail. It appears well grounded in fact and law, establishing a record of criminal actions that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, could not responsibly ignore or excuse. The whinging reactions of Trump and various Republicans consisted of pathetic attempts at ignoring or dismissing reality.
Among the sillier and more banal of Republican complaints is the suggestion that Biden has “weaponized” the government against Trump. For example:
“Let’s be clear about what’s happening: Joe Biden is weaponizing his Department of Justice against his own political rival,” said Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 House Republican. “This sham indictment is the continuation of the endless political persecution of Donald Trump.”
Mr. Scalise’s comments followed those of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who vowed to “hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable.”
To begin with, Joe Biden did not indict, or caused the indictment of, his rival. The indictment came from an independent Special Counsel, Jack Smith. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support any claim that Jack Smith was politically motivated or influenced in either his investigation or in the indictment he has brought. On the contrary, it is clear that Smith has acted as would any competent prosecutor with the courage to follow the facts and apply the law.
Beyond that, the Republicans’ claim is semantic nonsense. “Weaponize” is a banal and overused cliché that, if it means anything, refers to a misuse of some neutral institution or policy as a “weapon.” Nothing of the sort is remotely present here. The intended use of the Justice Department (or of a Special Counsel, if one is appointed) is to act as a weapon against the commission of crimes. And that is precisely what has been done here.
There is, however, a sense in which the present indictment of Trump was necessary but may not be sufficient. Specifically, it may be sufficient in the law courts, but lacking in the larger court of public opinion.
In the present context, the court of public opinion consists of the portion of the public whose judgment of Trump is, to some extent, undecided. That is, it excludes both his die-hard supporters and those who (including the writer) have long been convinced of his utter unfitness for public office. For the remaining undecided portion, it may appear that some essential ingredients are missing. Specifically, those ingredients are evidence that a) Trump’s actions were intended to provide himself with some particular benefit, i.e., financial, political or otherwise, and b) that they were a cause of actual, as opposed to potential, harm.
On the first count, as to Trump’s motive, an ostensibly persuasive analysis was offered by Chris Cillizza:
All of which brings us to Trump’s decision to keep — and show off — classified documents. The reason is simple: It made him feel like a big man.
Remember that back in January Trump admitted that he kept empty folders marked “classified” — for a very specific reason. “Remember, these were just ordinary, inexpensive folders with various words printed on them, but they were a ‘cool’ keepsake,” he said on his Truth Social website. A “cool keepsake.” As in, a fun thing to flash around, to impress people with, to remind them that he had been president.
While that sounds relatively innocent on its face, it is more than a bit creepy on the part of a President, compounded here by Trump’s tactic of squirreling away sensitive documents in bizarre locations around Mar-a-Lago (including a bathroom shower). In any case, given Trump’s transactional compulsion to generate revenue or other self-advantage wherever he can, there is no limit to what may have been in store for some of the documents.
In terms of harm, the biggest impact so far may be with our allies who must be distinctly uncomfortable at seeing their own secrets made vulnerable in such a reckless way. What repercussions that will have remains to be seen. It seems inevitable, however, that they will be less willing to share sensitive information.
In any case, it is virtually certain that Jack Smith has a good deal more up his sleeve with other active investigations. It is likely that, before long, we will have evidence of Trump’s venality sufficient to shatter the confidence of all but the most deplorable members of his deplorable base.