Ross Douthat: This trial isn’t going to cost Trump many voters

To most observers, a conviction will seem either a minor offense or an overreach of prosecution.

By Ross Douthat / The New York Times

Throughout the Republican primary campaign (such as it was), it was perfectly clear that the multiple indictments of Donald Trump helped him consolidate support. This was a source of moral exasperation to liberals, but their bafflement coexisted with the hope that what played well with the MAGA faithful would have the opposite effect in the general election. Trump’s cries of persecution might rally conservatives in a primary, but the trials themselves would help Joe Biden cruise to reelection.

The trial that we’re actually getting, the prosecution of Trump for falsified business records related to hush money payments related to his assignation with porn actor Stormy Daniels, could theoretically still have that effect; a guilty verdict could shake loose a couple of points from Trump’s modest but consistent polling lead.

But watching the trial play out so far, it seems just as likely that as in the primaries, so now in the general election: Any political effect from being charged and tried is probably working marginally in Trump’s favor.

First, consider how this trial plays if you are not paying close attention to the legal details. Follow the coverage casually, the headlines about Daniels’ testimony especially, and it appears that Trump is on trial for cheating on his wife in a distinctly sordid way and then trying to conceal it; for being a political figure, a candidate for high office, and lying about sex.

As it happens, America spent a pretty important period of time litigating the question of whether it’s a serious offense for a lecherous politician (one whose campaign apparatus notoriously labored to prevent “bimbo eruptions”) to conceal an inappropriate sexual liaison. Indeed, we even litigated the question of whether committing brazen perjury while trying to conceal a sexual liaison is a serious offense. And the country answered this question by embracing the consensus position of American liberalism at the time and offering Bill Clinton tolerance, forgiveness, absolution.

Admittedly, some politically engaged Americans are too young to directly recall the Clinton presidency. But the Monica Lewinsky affair still casts a meaningful cultural shadow, and many of the Trump trial’s headlines cast the prosecutors in a Kenneth Starr-like part. Nothing really new is being revealed about Trump’s conduct here; the country knows that he’s a philanderer and scoundrel. Instead, the revelations are about the seeming hypocrisy of his political enemies and how easily the former Democratic indifference to lying-about-sex gave way to prurience when it offered a path to getting Trump.

Now suppose you follow the trial more closely and really dig in to the legal arguments. In that case, you understand that Trump is not being tried for trying to conceal the affair, because no matter how much emphasis the prosecution lays on his personal shadiness, hush money payments are not in fact illegal. Instead, he’s being tried for a cover-up of the cover-up, a deception allegedly carried out inside his own accounting system.

You also understand that this alleged cover-up is itself only a misdemeanor that would not normally yield a felony prosecution. It’s been boosted to a felony charge only because the prosecution, using a specific provision of New York law, argues that it’s linked to the “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.”

Then you further know that the prosecution has multiple candidates for its “another crime” that Trump allegedly intended to commit, forcing legal analysts to create flow charts to explain how the misdemeanor charge could be linked to other possible offenses. Maybe to a federal campaign finance violation. Maybe to a form of tax fraud (a curious kind that somehow ended with an overpayment to the federal government). Or maybe to a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

Finally, you know that according to the best legal analysis, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of these related crimes were actually committed.

I defer to those analysts on what New York state legal precedent suggests. But I would defy anyone to summarize the underlying situation, in which a presidential candidate could be sent to prison for a misdemeanor offense elevated by a second crime for which he isn’t even being charged, without the description coming across as somewhat Kafkaesque.

To a normal observer, then, if the underexplained version of the trial looks like the Lewinsky affair all over again, the uber-explained version might just look like a partisan prosecutor’s overreach. And all that is before you even get to the fact that the prosecution’s entire case hinges on the testimony of acknowledged perjurer and Trump-hater Michael Cohen.

Just as even paranoid people can have enemies, even sinful demagogues can face a politically motivated prosecution — and stand to gain from the appearance of legal persecution. And that appearance, so far, has been this trial’s political gift to Donald Trump.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

June 22, 2024: The Warning Label
Editorial cartoons for Monday, June 24

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE - Lion Air's Boeing 737 Max 8 sits on the tarmac at Ngurah Rai International Airport in Bali, Indonesia, April 13, 2019. Indonesia said Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2021, it is lifting its ban on Boeing’s 737 Max aircraft, three years after one crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 189 people on board. (AP Photo Nicole Evatt, File)
Editorial: Boeing quality proving difficult to recapture

The company seeks to assure its rededication to quality, but recent news is getting in the way.

Comment: Schools banning cellphones; wha’ts not to like?

Parents can still make the call on whether kids have cellphones. Schools can decide their use in school.

Saunders: Biden should stop with Trump bleach-injection fable

The story requires some context, but Trump did not call for people to inject bleach to cure covid.

Comment: Court’s bump stock ruling reflects its MAGA direction

Continuing its conservative activism, the majority turned to the dictionary to legalize machine guns.

Loss of Herald staff a loss for journalism, democracy

Friday, the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County issued the following… Continue reading

Readers will notice the loss of Herald staff in newspaper

My deepest sympathies for The Herald’s newsroom staff regarding the pending layoffs.… Continue reading

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, June 23

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

President Joe Biden hugs Javier Quiroz Castro, who benefitted from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, during an anniversary event for DACA in the East Room at the White House on Tuesday, June 18, 2024. President Biden on Tuesday announced sweeping new protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been living in the United States illegally for years but are married to American citizens. (Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Comment: Biden looks to protect immigrant spouses of citizens

An executive order providing legal status would help families and the communities in which they live.

Herald layoffs mark sad day for local journalism

I did not subscribe to The Herald to support a company from… Continue reading

Thanks for doing the math to determine Herald Athletic Cup

I read with pleasure the article about high school sports and the… Continue reading

How can Herald continue with much smaller staff?

I am stunned by the news in Thursday’s Herald regarding the significant… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.