The Three Contributing Factors That Led to Donald Trump’s Indictment – On June 8, 2023, Donald Trump became the first former President of the United States to be federally indicted. The 49-page indictment laid out the events surrounding 37-criminal charges related to his handling of classified information and the steps he allegedly took to impede the investigative process.
On August 1, 2023, the 45th President of the United States was leveled with another federal indictment, but this time related to events of January 6th.
Donald Trump and What Happens Overseas
While indicting a former president is novel in the United States, the same cannot be said of leaders from other countries. Over the last two decades, Latin America has dominated the prosecuting of former leaders. Peru alone has arrested or charged every single president (but one) between 1985 and 2018. Other countries who are no stranger to charging former leaders include: France, South Korea, Israel, Italy, and South Africa, among others.
Until now, what has protected the United States from the international embarrassment of charging a former president?
Is the United States more ethical or mature than other countries? Do former presidents of the United States have more integrity than others worldwide?
There is a perception that more sophisticated countries have fewer corrupt officials, but in reality, more sophisticated countries just engage in more sophisticated acts of corruption.
And former presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and John F. Kennedy (to name a few) either engaged in or were credibly alleged to have engaged in criminal activity. Mr. Trump was definitely not the first.
If the behavior of past presidents suggests they are no different than leaders of other countries, then why haven’t any of the former presidents of the United States been charged until now?
Donald Trump: Why He Was Charged
Equal justice under the law is not what many wish it was – and in some cases for good reason.
The President of the United States is not like any other citizen. The investigation or arrest of a former president can be destabilizing, undermining social trust and confidence in institutions. DOJ has historically considered it their responsibility to measure the exercise of accountability against the impact it has on the nation’s stability. And when it comes to investigating or prosecuting the president, DOJ has had little interest in jeopardizing public trust.
That is, until now.
There are three contributing factors that, in totality, nudged the DOJ to change their tact and allow the investigation into, and subsequent indictment of, former President Trump.
First, his mouth. His unfiltered speech and lack of discretion makes him immensely different than his predecessors. He says what he wants and cares little about appearances. His unconventional approach to governing and his lack of prudence make him a threat to those long entrenched in a political system marked by deception on both sides of the aisle. The overtness of his language betrays the secrecy of the political game and brings to the forefront that which is usually reserved for behind closed doors. He confirms the suspicions of many who are critical of politics, creating greater instability among voters, from DOJ’s perspective, than indicting him. Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign makes his mouth a continued threat to the political order.
Second, his (genetic) makeup. Mr. Trump is not a member of a minority group or a protected class. Minority groups and members of a protected class are held accountable in public corruption investigations, of course, but DOJ is extremely sensitive to the perception that they are targeting these individuals because they are part of a minority group or protected class. So much so, that they will adjust investigative and prosecutorial decisions, including declining a prosecution, if “too many” from a particular group are charged within a given timeframe and/or region. Their concerns are amplified exponentially when contemplating accountability for the President of the United States, particularly when it involves individuals who are “breaking the glass ceiling.” Any criminal charge against the President of the United States would be unavoidably viewed as political, DOJ can accept that, but being perceived as sexist or racist is well outside their risk appetite. Criminal evidence aside, former Secretary Hillary Clinton, although not president, was never going to be charged because she was the first viable female presidential candidate in United States history. There are few crimes significant enough to justify the inevitability of DOJ being labeled sexist. This is also true of Barrack Obama, the nation’s first black president. Given Mr. Trump did not fall into a minority group or protected class, investigating and charging the former president was far less of a perception problem for DOJ.
Third, Hunter Biden. The federal plea deal with Hunter Biden that was publicly announced less than two weeks after the indictment of Donald Trump provided a counter-balance DOJ desperately needed. Whether DOJ is being political or not, they do try to avoid the appearance of being political, which is why Hunter Biden’s charges were predictable. On July 28, 2022, this author tweeted, “…#DOJ wouldn’t charge #Trump without charging #HunterBiden…”
In summary, his mouth made DOJ want to do it, his (genetic) makeup made it acceptable to do it, and Hunter Biden made doing it appear objective.
Unfortunately, this means that the circumstances around the evidence, not the evidence itself, drive DOJ’s decision of whether or not to hold the most powerful accountable. This is a violation of one of the key tenets of the rule-of-law, that “laws be equally enforced.”
The DOJ design flaw was never more evident than when John F. Kennedy appointed his own brother Attorney General. The system is not perfect, but it is the system we have. And while it is far better than most any other system in the world, it requires vigilant oversight and leaders with an objective commitment to the rule-of-law to ensure it is kept from becoming an enemy of the people.
Jeff Cortese, a financial crimes senior manager in the private sector, is the former acting chief of the FBI’s Public Corruption Unit. Before his 11-year career with the bureau, he worked as a dignitary protection agent with the U.S. Capitol Police and served on the security detail for the Speaker of the House. Follow him on Twitter @jeffreycortese or find him at his website www.jeffcortese.com.
From 19FortyFive
The Second American Civil War Has Begun
