13 Comments

That's as good a hot-take a I've read so far, Paul and I think you've nailed it.

How it all plays out in the courts is a mystery that will unfold slowly, and it could break for or against Trump and republicans in so many ways.

On #8, beyond Bragg's ambitions, I find it hard to believe that such an impactful and risky move wouldn't have been green-lighted by party leadership (Biden or whoever is pulling his puppet strings) – particularly if Bragg has grander ambitions in the party.

Beyond that, you forgot to include the word "Rubicon" somewhere in your piece. It's fast becoming the best known river in the US next to the Mississippi.

Expand full comment

I suppose we are well past the point in America, were a malicious, political prosecution would result in disbarment?

Expand full comment

This case is just a repeat of the previous trial with Stephanie Gregory Clifford, Stormy, and Michael Avenatti loosing big time. Trump and his legal team will get a judgement for all their legal fees, AGAIN. The DA that brought this case has a long history of letting murders, rapists and armed robbers off with a slap on the wrist to commit more rapes, robberies and murders. Alvin Bragg will likely end up charged and convicted of prosecutorial misconduct. He is basing his entire case on the testimony of a proven liar. And Bragg KNOWS that that his witness Cohen is lying to the grand jury.

Expand full comment
Mar 31, 2023·edited Apr 2, 2023

On #5: Widely recognized, that disparity will only grate and fester with time. Time does not always heal a wound.

On #6: I wonder how immune to all this GOP congressmen and senators now feel. At what point does reality intrude on those so intensely focused on careerism and mortgages in suburban DC?

On #8: And such a sudden change from just a day or two ago when all signs pointed to a month or more before hearing from the grand jury. Whatever is it that happened in the last couple days? Never underestimate the sheer brazenness of Democrats when there's need for a squirrel.

After the last 6 years of non-stop attempts to destroy Trump, a legitimately elected President, is this really such a surprise? Okay then, can we at least say this one...this one...is a crossing of the Rubicon? Because I don't see how this is undone. How does one come back from this? Appeals to those mystic chords of memory? No doubt some Republican will try that line and be hooted down for the effort.

Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Not living anywhere near DC, I have to wonder if DC Democrats think that their tribe is up to that earlier standard and whether any of them are well enough read in history to know how that all turned out in the end. How long do they think that they can rely on the national GOP to hold off the less than clubby? Realizing all that, they simply cannot give up power now.

Democrats never learn a thing and simply cannot be taught. It's the same damn thing over and over putting themselves in the position described by Jefferson in an 1820 exchange with John Holmes; the same one in which he describes hearing a fire bell in the night: "But as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

Expand full comment

More persecution of Trump does not harm him, it harms the persecutors.

Expand full comment

This case is just a repeat of the previous trial with Stephanie Gregory Clifford, Stormy, and Michael Avenatti loosing big time. Trump and his legal team will get a judgement for all their legal fees, AGAIN. The DA that brought this case has a long history of letting murders, rapists and armed robbers off with a slap on the wrist to commit more rapes, robberies and murders. Alvin Bragg will likely end up charged and convicted of prosecutorial misconduct. He is basing his entire case on the testimony of a proven liar. And Bragg KNOWS that that his witness Cohen is lying to the grand jury.

Expand full comment

There has been a serious and substantial deterioration of basic norms of the rule of law, and certain political practices in the United States since then. Yesterday, I was confident this absurd case would not result in conviction? But in an increasingly hyperpolarized society where a propagandistic press can convince wide swaths of the public to believe in self-contradictory absurdities, and where enormous amounts of vindictive rage persist? I am not so certain.

Expand full comment

One legal question for you, Paul:

DeSantis said that FL would not cooperate in extraditing Trump to NY.

If had Trump had decided not to surrender himself but to defy Bragg and provoke a confrontation, what do you think would have happened?

Could Bragg have arrested him in FL or other states without the help of local police?

Expand full comment
author

I don't know the answer to your question, David. My sense is that, in your hypothetical scenario, if DeSantis didn't cooperate, the Manhattan DA would get a court order from a Florida judge requiring Trump's arrest. If the Florida police still wouldn't carry out the arrest, Florida officials would be in contempt of court, I imagine

If they still resisted, I'm not sure who could/would arrest whom.

Expand full comment

It's an interesting scenario, and I ask because I worry that we're going to get to a point in this country - if the politicization of federal justice continues – where certain states just say we're not going to participate in this farce any more. Come get us, copper.

Constitutional crisis?

Not only that, it raises the moral question of how best to react to unjust law. There is violent resistance, usually counter-productive against the state, and non-violent non-cooperation (Gandhi).

We had a miniature version of this here in north Idaho during the COVID restrictions. They didn't last long here, but when the state DPH and Governor issued mask mandates for certain counties, most local Sheriffs said publicly that they would not enforce them. Within two months, the most lockdown oriented members of the state DPH resigned, and that was that.

Expand full comment
Apr 2, 2023·edited Apr 2, 2023

Not a Constitutional crisis if the Constitution isn't involved. Mr. Mirengoff's amusing hypothetical is purely local to Florida: It relies upon NY authorities seeking relief through the Florida courts and leveraging the relationship of Florida courts to their officers: e.g. sheriffs, marshals, leo's, etc.. Refusal to enforce an order of the Florida courts is a purely local matter. How Florida would sort that out could be vastly amusing and why I noted earlier that in saying that he would not help NY authorities, DeSantis said nothing about helping Trump. Moreover, non-assistance is a veritable tradition: Ralph noted the actions of Governor Cuomo. How many sanctuaries are there for illegal aliens, gun rights, abortion providers, and no doubt others? And you noted actions taken by Idaho sheriffs in reaction to state public health authorities and government in regards to Covid mandates - and they were not alone. "Irish democracy" has from the beginning been and remains alive and well in America.

Expand full comment
Apr 1, 2023·edited Apr 1, 2023

Regarding the last question: Is this not equivalent to: Can members of the Ohio State Highway Patrol pursue a subject into Michigan and make an arrest in Michigan? Without an agreement between Michigan and Ohio on jurisdiction of state LEO, the answer will be "No." I suppose the amusing hypothetical concerns NY state police trying some form of the Eichmann exfiltration as conducted by the Israelis and Trump-world calling for help from Florida officials. DeSantis said he would not aid NY authorities but didn't say that he would aid Trump.

Expand full comment
Apr 1, 2023·edited Apr 1, 2023

During the governorship of Mario Cuomo in New York, there was a policy of refusing to extradite individuals indicted for murder in states with capital punishment. The first act of Governor Pataki upon entering office, was to sign extradition papers for an individual who was facing murder charges and an ultimate execution, in the State of Oklahoma. Strangely, the man, who was already serving a life sentence, welcomed the extradition. I think case law may have since changed.

Expand full comment