Trump’s political fight is his legal fight | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Trump’s political fight is his legal fight

Published

 on

Former president Donald Trump began his first prepared remarks following his arraignment on federal criminal charges on Tuesday the way he so often does: with dishonesty and hyperbole.

“Today,” he said, “we witness the most evil and heinous abuse of power in the history of our country. Very sad thing to watch. A corrupt sitting president had his top political opponent arrested on fake and fabricated charges of which he and numerous other presidents would be guilty.”

As exhaustingly familiar as this patter is to outside observers, it remains energizing to some substantial portion of his base. President Biden is corrupt! they’re invited to think. This whole thing is unfair!

So by the time Trump gets into the next phase of his speech — the criminal defendant’s explanation of the legal failings of the case against him — they’re already nodding along. He ropes them in with the cozy familiarity of “everyone is out to get me, by which I mean us” and then outlines the scattershot arguments they can deploy in his defense. The indictment details numerous examples of Trump allegedly seeking to avoid turning over documents? Well: Presidential Records Act! Check and mate.

Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump

As he was rolling along in the comments he offered outside his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., on Tuesday evening, former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (and veteran of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe) noticed something.

“Whatever documents the president decides to take with him, he has the right to do so,” Trump said in his speech. “It’s an absolute right. This is the law. And that is something that people have now seen.”

In an interview on MSNBC, Weissmann (who can be trusted to have a firmer grasp on the legal issues at play) pointed out that this undermines his case rather than proving it.

“When you are charged with the illegal retention, the illegal possession of the documents,” Weissmann said, “it is not a good idea to say, ‘Hey, you want to know why I took these? Because I could.’ That is not a defense to that charge. That is an admission to the charge.”

In general, this is why criminal defendants are encouraged not to go around offering comments on their cases; those words can and will be used against them in a court of law, as the saying goes. This particular line from Trump isn’t novel and may not itself doom his defense, but it almost certainly doesn’t help.

But perhaps because the public case against Trump is so robust or perhaps because Trump would be inclined to respond to any indictment in the same way, he finds it useful to use the indictment not as a moment to hunker down and defend himself but to bolster his political position. He followed the arraignment on Tuesday with a campaign-style stop at a Cuban restaurant in Miami and then closed out that day with his campaign-style speech. It is not a normal approach.

That’s because there’s another way in which this entirely unprecedented situation is unprecedented: Trump’s freedom may be contingent not on the success of his trial but of his campaign.

This isn’t normally the case, even for elected officials. There are no boundaries in place to block the indictment or incarceration of sitting mayors or members of Congress or state legislators. It’s only at the presidential level where there exist prohibitions against indictment or prosecution.

In an October 2000 memo, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel reinforced a 1973 determination that presidents shouldn’t face such sanctions.

“The Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties,” it concluded, “and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers.”

Ergo, as long as Trump is president, he’s not getting prosecuted, barring some unlikely shift in the Justice Department’s position. Or maybe he could even pardon himself for his alleged crimes, something he’s explored in the past.

Trump and his ever-evolving cadre of attorneys is adept at establishing roadblocks to legal processes; the odds that a trial concludes before Nov. 5, 2024, are slim. So now put yourself in Trump’s shoes: Which is easier, winning the presidency or winning in court? More importantly, over which process do you yourself have more control?

This is why he may think it makes sense to frame his arraignment in the context of his campaign, to fundraise off it and to turn the attention it generates into political attention. This is why he might not care too much that the Andrew Weissmanns of the world are able to pick out incriminating details — they’re only incriminating for a competition on which Trump isn’t focusing.

He pointed out that there was a photo in the indictment “where someone, not me — I wonder who it might have been! — dumped one of the very neatly arranged boxes all over the floor.” As the Atlantic’s David Graham pointed out, it would seem to be pretty unhelpful to suggest that these boxes of documents were available for an unknown number of people to molest. But that’s only in the realm of the legal issue, not the political one. In the political realm, the idea is that the photos were maybe staged or somehow presented to make him unfairly look bad … because his enemies — America’s enemies! — are out to get him.

Over the course of his Bedminster speech, Trump deployed now-familiar apocalyptic rhetoric about the importance of the 2024 contest. It’s the end times, if you listen to Trump, and only he can avert national disaster. America needs him because the existing power structures are so corrupt — so corrupt that they are contriving legal charges against him to keep him out of power.

It’s all overheated and dishonest, and it is all fundamentally self-serving. Trump needs his base to think he’s their only savior because he very much needs the protection afforded by the white walls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead of tearing down the government, Trump wants to be elected to seek shelter within it.

Trump’s lawyers will mount a legal defense. But his most reliable defense against the charges and against incarceration is his election. His political fight is, in every meaningful sense, his legal one.

 

Source link

Politics

Youri Chassin quits CAQ to sit as Independent, second member to leave this month

Published

 on

 

Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.

He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.

In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.

Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.

He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.

Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.

He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

‘I’m not going to listen to you’: Singh responds to Poilievre’s vote challenge

Published

 on

 

MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.

“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.

“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”

Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”

“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.

“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”

While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.

“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.

Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.

Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.

“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.

New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.

The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.

It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.

While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.

Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.

He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.

Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.

The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.

With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.

The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Social media comments blocked: Montreal mayor says she won’t accept vulgar slurs

Published

 on

 

Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.

She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.

Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.

They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.

However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.

Her statement on X is closed to comments.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version