Mediaboss Marketing

Im going to begin this column with a rather unusual reading recommendation. If youve got an afternoon to kill and want to read 126 pages of heavily footnoted legal argument and historical analysis, I strongly recommend a law review article entitled The Sweep and Force of Section Three. Its a rather dull headline for a highly provocative argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally disqualified from holding the office of president.

In the article, two respected conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, make the case that the text, history and tradition of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment a post-Civil War amendment that prohibited former public officials from holding office again if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion or gave aid or comfort to those who did all strongly point to the conclusion that Trump is ineligible for the presidency based on his actions on and related to Jan. 6, 2021. Barring a two-thirds congressional amnesty vote, Trumps ineligibility, Baude and Paulsen argue, is as absolute as if he were too young to be president or were not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Its a fascinating and compelling argument that only grows more compelling with each painstakingly researched page. But as I was reading it, a single, depressing thought came to my mind. Baude and Paulsens argument may well represent the single most rigorous and definitive explanation of Section 3 ever put to paper, yet its difficult to imagine, at this late date, the Supreme Court ultimately either striking Trump from the ballot or permitting state officials to do so.

As powerful as Baude and Paulsens substantive argument is, the late date means that by the time any challenge to Trumps eligibility might reach the Supreme Court, voters may have already started voting in the Republican primaries. Millions of votes could have been cast. The Supreme Court is already reluctant to change election procedures on the eve of an election. How eager would it be to remove a candidate from the ballot after hes perhaps even clinched a primary?

While I believe the court should intervene even if the hour is late, its worth remembering that it would face this decision only because of the comprehensive failure of congressional Republicans. Let me be specific. There was never any way to remove Trump from American politics through the Democratic Party alone. Ending Trumps political career required Republican cooperation, and Republicans have shirked their constitutional duties, sometimes through sheer cowardice. They have punted their responsibilities to other branches of government or simply shrunk back in fear of the consequences.

In hindsight, for example, Republican inaction after Jan. 6 boggles the mind. Rather than remove Trump from American politics by convicting him in the Senate after his second impeachment, Republicans punted their responsibilities to the American legal system. As Mitch McConnell said when he voted to acquit Trump, We have a criminal justice system in this country. Yet not even a successful prosecution and felony conviction on any of the charges against him, in any of the multiple venues can disqualify Trump from serving as president. Because of G.O.P. cowardice, our nation is genuinely facing the possibility of a presidents taking the oath of office while also appealing one or more substantial prison sentences.

Republicans have also punted to the American voters, suggesting that any outstanding questions of Trumps fitness be decided at the ballot box. Its a recommendation with some real appeal. (In his most recent newsletter, my colleague Ross Douthat makes a powerful case that only politics can solve the problem of Donald Trump.) Give the people what they want is a core element of democratic politics, and if enough people want Trump, then who are American politicians or judges to deprive them? Yet the American founders (and the drafters of the 14th Amendment) also knew the necessity of occasionally checking the popular will, and the Constitution thus contains a host of safeguards designed to protect American democracy from majorities run amok. After all, if voting alone were sufficient to protect America from insurrectionist leaders, there would have been no need to draft or ratify Section 3.

Why are Republicans in Congress punting to voters and the legal system? For many of them, the answer lies in raw fear. First, there is the simple political fear of losing a House or Senate seat. In polarized, gerrymandered America, all too many Republican politicians face political risk only from their right, and that right appears to be overwhelmingly populated by Trumpists.

But theres another fear as well, that imposing accountability will only escalate American political division, leading to a tit-for-tat of prosecuted or disqualified politicians. This fear is sometimes difficult to take seriously. For example, conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro raised it, arguing that running for office now carries the legal risk of going to jail on all sides. Yet he had himself written an entire book calling for racketeering charges against Barack Obama.

That said, the idea that vengeful MAGA Republicans might prosecute Democrats out of spite is credible enough to raise concerns outside the infotainment right. Michael McConnell, a conservative professor I admire a great deal (and one who is no fan of Donald Trump), expressed concern about the Section 3 approach to disqualifying Trump. I worry that this approach could empower partisans to seek disqualification every time a politician supports or speaks in support of the objectives of a political riot, he wrote, adding, Imagine how bad actors will use this theory.

In other words, Trump abused America once, and the fear is that if we hold him accountable, he or his allies will abuse our nation again. I think Professor McConnells warnings are correct. Trump and his allies are already advertising their plans for revenge. But if past practice is any guide, Trump and his allies will abuse our nation whether we hold him accountable or not. The abuse is the constant reality of Trump and the movement he leads. Accountability is the variable dependent on the courage and will of key American leaders and only accountability has any real hope of stopping the abuse.

A fundamental reality of human existence is that vice often leaves virtue with few good options. Evil men can attach catastrophic risks to virtually any course of action, however admirable. But we can and should learn lessons from history. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, two of our greatest presidents, both faced insurrectionary movements, and their example should teach us today. When Washington faced an open revolt during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, he didnt appease the rebels, instead mobilizing overwhelming force to meet the moment and end the threat.

In 1861, Lincoln rejected advice to abandon Fort Sumter in South Carolina in the hope of avoiding direct confrontation with the nascent Confederate Army. Instead, he ordered the Navy to resupply the fort. The Confederates bombarded Sumter and launched the deadliest war in American history, but there was no point at which Lincoln was going to permit rebels to blackmail the United States into extinction.

If you think the comparisons to the Whiskey Rebellion or the Civil War are overwrought, just consider the consequences had Trumps plan succeeded. I have previously described Jan. 6 as Americas near-death day for good reason. If Mike Pence had declared Trump the victor or even if the certification of the election had been delayed one shudders to consider what would have happened next. We would have faced the possibility of two presidents being sworn in at once, with the Supreme Court (and ultimately federal law enforcement, or perhaps even the Army) being tasked with deciding which one was truly legitimate.

Thankfully, the American legal system has worked well enough to knock the MAGA movement on its heels. Hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters face criminal justice. The movements corrupt lawyers face their own days in court. Trump is indicted in four jurisdictions. Yet all of that work can be undone and every triumph will turn to defeat if a disqualified president reclaims power in large part through the fear of his foes.

But the story of Washington and Lincoln doesnt stop with their decisive victories. While 10 members of the Whiskey Rebellion were tried for treason, only two were convicted, and Washington ultimately pardoned them both. On the eve of final victory, Lincolns second Inaugural Address contained words of grace that echo through history, With malice toward none, with charity for all.

Victory is not incompatible with mercy, and mercy can be indispensable after victory. But while the threat remains, so must the resolve, even if it means asking the Supreme Court to intervene at the worst possible time. Let me end where I began. Read Baude and Paulsen and not just for their compelling legal argument. Read and remember what it was like when people of character and conviction inhabited the American political class. They have given us the tools to defend the American experiment. All we need is the will.

Read the original:
Opinion | Appeasing Donald Trump Won't Work - The New York Times

At some point last week, Donald Trumps lawyers got through to him. One day after a Georgia grand jury indicted him for trying to overturn the 2020 election, the former president announced on Tuesday that he would hold a press conference the following week to rebut the charges. The plan didnt last for long. By Thursday, the whole thing was nixed. "My lawyers would prefer putting this, I believe, Irrefutable & Overwhelming evidence of Election Fraud & Irregularities in formal Legal Filings as we fight to dismiss this disgraceful Indictment," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

In other words, Trumps attorneys seemingly convinced him of one of his most sacred rights as a criminal defendant: Mr. President, you have the right to remain silent.

But while his legal team may have dodged a bullet, for now, the problem isnt going away. Trump is famous for his impromptu and incendiary pronouncements, whether through his rambling speeches or his social media tirades. Over the course of a long and arduous campaign, he will have ample opportunity to pontificate on his many prosecutions, meaning his lawyers, in all likelihood, wont be able to protect Trump from himself for long. No one has been able to manage Donald Trump, including Donald Trump, says Whit Ayres, a veteran GOP strategist. The effort to do so is virtually hopeless. I can't imagine being his defense attorney in one of these trials. You'd have to drink a case of Maalox every morning just to get through the day.

Still, Trump has proven himself adept at turning scandal into political advantage. His mastery of survival and showmanship could help him clinch the Republican nominationwith each indictment, he has soared only further in the pollsbut it also comes with a distinctive risk, as Trumps comments could potentially be used against him in court.

I think that the statements he's making can, and likely will do, substantial damage to him, says Norm Eisen, who served as counsel for House Democrats on Trumps first impeachment. Additional statements can incriminate you. They can be the basis of worsening existing charges or superseding charges. They can be utilized as admissions while the trial is being prosecuted, whether or not Trump testifies. They run the risk of witness intimidation or harassment, which violate the terms of release for federal and state law.

Attorneys for Special Counsel Jack Smith have already alerted the judge overseeing the federal election subversion case against Trump about a Truth Social post that appeared to threaten prospective witnesses. If you come after me, Im coming after you, Trump wrote in all caps. While Trumps campaign insisted the post was meant as a warning to the former Presidents political enemies, it was written in a way that left his intent open to interpretation. That kind of language from Trump could also become a problem for him in Georgia, where the conditions of a new $200,000 bond agreement stipulate that he refrain from intimidating a witness or co-defendant, including on social media.

Its a dynamic that reveals the double-edged nature of Trumps ploy to consolidate his political and legal strategies. I think they're going to have a field day, because any prosecutor would tell you there are few things more powerful than using a defendants own statements in court, says Temidayo Aganga-Williams, a former federal prosecutor who was a staff member on the Jan. 6 Committee. You would tell jurors to act like this is any other personif this were your son, your brother, your co-worker.

Trump has cast the four separate indictments against him as a partisan witch-hunt to stop him from reclaiming the White House. In both the federal and Georgia cases that allege he knowingly spread lies of election fraud to stay in power, Trumps attorneys have argued that he was acting within his First Amendment rights to challenge the election outcome. They also insist that Trump believed his own claims and was therefore not operating with criminal intent.

But while his lawyers are trying to exonerate him in court, his campaign has been using his predicament to capitalize on the campaign trail, sending out a stream of fundraising blasts after each arraignment and selling merchandise with fake Trump mug shots. The tactic has worked; the former President is currently leading the GOP field by 30-to-40 points in most surveys. President Trump is dominating every single pollboth nationally and statewideand his numbers keep going up, Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, tells TIME. The latest polls conducted after the last indictment show the American people are standing firmly with him against out-of-control Democrats.

Trumps grip on the Republican base is one reason why most of his opponents havent attacked him over his legal woes. Instead, they seem to have made a calculation that the myriad prosecutors bringing criminal charges against Trump in the middle of an election year present the greatest threat to his Oval Office aspirations. A looming question that will be hanging over the first GOP primary debate Wednesday night is whether any of these cases will be resolved before voters head to the polls next year.

Smith has requested the election case go to trial in January, while the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case has already set a trial date for May 2024. Former prosecutors suspect that Smith is trying to move these cases along swiftly to avoid the possibility that Trump could put an end to them should he win the election, either by attempting to pardon himself or appointing an attorney general to squash the matter altogether. The Justice Departments long-standing policy of avoiding even the appearance of interfering in an election adds another level of urgency to bring these cases to a conclusion.

Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney, has more latitude. As a state prosecutor, she operates independently of the federal government, which allows her to keep prosecuting Trump even if hes the sitting President of the United States. That helps to explain why shes pursuing a more sprawling and complicated case, bringing racketeering charges against Trump and 18 allies with whom he allegedly conspired to nullify Joe Bidens election victory. It may well be another reason why Trumps lawyers tried to put the kibosh on his planned press conference, in which he was expected to propagate the disproven election fraud claims that sit at the heart of the Georgia indictment.

In my more than three decades principally acting as a criminal defense lawyer, Eisen says, the first instruction I gave my client at the very first meeting was: Shut up about this case. Do not talk to anyone. You do not know how that is going to come back to harm you.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

See original here:
Nightmare for Trump Defense Team: His Refusal to Stay Quiet - TIME

Its becoming a familiar playbook.

Two months after exhaustively covering former President Donald J. Trumps arraignment in a Manhattan courtroom in a separate case, the national television news media was back in force in Miami on Tuesday afternoon.

Three of the major broadcast networks ABC, NBC and CBS interrupted their usual afternoon programming to cover the news. NBC sent its evening news anchor, Lester Holt, to Miami, as did CBS with Norah ODonnell.

The cable news networks turned to its top news anchors. Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper oversaw coverage on CNN, and Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum helped lead coverage on Fox News.

Like Mr. Trumps trip to a Manhattan courthouse, the six major broadcast and cable news networks all used overhead shots to show Mr. Trumps motorcade making the roughly 20-minute trip to downtown Miami, where the former president was arraigned.

The wall-to-wall coverage represented yet another day in which Mr. Trump dominated the airwaves. Many of the panelists who took part in the coverage discussed the momentous nature of the day.

Whenever politics and law clash, theres always a tension because they are both places where fighting takes place, John Dickerson of CBS said from a makeshift set on a balcony overlooking the courthouse in Miami. Politics is the fighting of the barroom, and the law is more like a boxing match there are some rules.

Unlike the arraignment in April, there was decidedly a lack of useful footage. There were no shots of Mr. Trump entering the courthouse his motorcade entered a garage nor were there any images inside the federal building. The networks relied instead on images of demonstrators outside the courthouse.

Fox News broadcast live images of a person the networks anchors described as Melania Trump, the former first lady though within a few minutes the network said it was, in fact, not her. A day like this, with so many comings and goings, its easy from a distance to mistake two people, said John Roberts, the Fox anchor, who clarified it was actually Margo Martin, a Trump aide.

Earlier in the day, Fox News carried a news conference outside the Miami courthouse by Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican presidential candidate, in which he asked other candidates to commit to pardoning Mr. Trump. Five hours later, Mr. Ramaswamy sat for a live Fox News interview with Ms. MacCallum, this time in studio in New York. Youre moving around quickly today, she observed, before he denounced a politicized indictment.

All day long, MSNBC seemed to be looking ahead, displaying a graphic in the lower-right hand corner of its screen, featuring an image of Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace and Joy Reid, billing an 8 p.m. prime-time post-arraignment special.

The news about Mr. Trump has been good for MSNBCs ratings. Last week, the network finished No. 1 among the cable news networks in total viewers in prime-time for the full calendar week the first time it had achieved that in more than two years. The network averaged 1.52 million viewers, narrowly besting Fox Newss 1.51 million viewers and overwhelming CNNs average of 677,000 viewers.

It was also MSNBCs highest viewership during weekday prime-time hours since Mr. Trumps April arraignment.

Read the original:
Trump Pleads Not Guilty in Documents Case: Indictment Live Updates - The New York Times

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@nytimes.com with any questions.

So how do we introduce this? Do we say, basically, the latest in an occasional series on Trump indictments?

Indictments 2.0.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

From New York Times Opinion, Im Carlos Lozada.

Im Michelle Cottle.

And Im Ross Douthat.

And this is Matter of Opinion.

As you can tell, Lydia is not with us this week. She is off reporting in Chad. And we are appearing a little earlier than usual this week because, as you may have heard, Donald Trump has been indicted, again. And we, your dedicated podcast hosts, read all 49 pages of the federal indictment. After getting through it, I felt like I actually did get some new insight into how Trump operates and what makes him tick. Well get to our takeaways in a second, but first, who wants to give us a rundown of whats actually in the indictment?

Oh, please.

That would be Michelle.

Oh, please allow me to do this.

Michelle, step into the breach.

So for those keeping score at home, again, this is the second criminal indictment. In March, Trump was indicted in New York for allegedly falsifying business records. That was on state charges. This time, its federal. It is for allegedly holding on to lots of classified documents after he left the White House.

So were talking about documents that contain military secrets, intel secrets, nuclear secrets, both regarding the U.S and other nations. Its not just that he held on to these. Its that he allegedly actively conspired to hide them once the Justice Department stepped in with its very polite subpoena, suggesting that it might be best if he handed these over.

So, as the prosecution lays out, he was going through boxes, conspiring with an aide, lying to his own lawyers, and at one point, even suggesting that his lawyers remove evidence that might be extremely unfortunate if it was found. So, as shocking and unbelievable as it is, its also kind of like, yeah, here we go again.

Well, I was interested that you started out, Carlos, saying that you felt like you maybe had learned something new about our glorious, exiled emperor, Donald Trump, because with all due respect to the importance of American national security, this is an absolutely hilarious indictment. I feel like everything, the image of the boxes, the photographs of the boxes piled in the Mar-a-Lago bathroom alone is going to go down in history alongside the photo of Trump with the fast food buffet in the White House as sort of

It has launched 1,000 memes.

But to me, of course, this is the Donald Trump that we know, right? The Donald Trump who wants to keep the boxes because theyre his boxes, has no concept, obviously, of the national interest, sort of national security, apart from his own sort of role as capo di tutti capi at the White House. He doesnt separate sort of the public interest from his own interest. He seems to have also had some scores to settle, right? He held on to documents related to things he was still mad about, which is something very relatable to me. What do you hold on to?

Who among us?

Anyway, so Carlos, whats new here? What did you learn?

Well, I mean, first off, I got flashbacks to a lot of similar past Trump actions, and let me cover that first before I get into what I thought was novel. First, Trump has been very cavalier about national security secrets and classified information in the past. He was when he was president. There was that famous meeting in the Oval Office with Russian officials where he revealed that the United States was getting intelligence from an ally about the Islamic State. So that was very familiar.

The way he talked to his lawyer was extremely familiar. When he tells the lawyer basically, look, take these documents youve found, go back to your hotel, and if you see anything really bad, just kind of pluck them out. He didnt say pluck them out. He made kind of the hand motion of plucking them out. And that reminded me of Michael Cohens memoir about working for Trump he was Trumps fixer and lawyer when he says that Trump would often just kind of imply instructions, leave plausible deniability for kind of illegal acts and kind of like a mob boss.

Its so Cosa Nostra. It really is. Its just like, dont say it. Just imply it.

Except that the one thing that distinguishes Trump from the true mob boss is that he has so many of these conversations himself, right? Like a really effective mob boss, its three layers away. And part of whats fascinating about Trump and this isnt just true with mob bosses, right? When presidents want to do borderline illegal things, which other presidents besides Trump have done, theyre usually trying to insulate themselves or find fixers and so on, and Trump does that, but he also just does it himself. Anyway, but Carlos, Im actually really curious what was surprising?

It gave me some insight into what Trump means when he says that his next administration, his next presidency would be a time for retribution, because the way that he very deliberately used one document to strike back at Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who he felt was getting good press and was trash talking him in sort of books and articles that were coming out, shows you that hes not just careless and reckless with classified information.

He doesnt just like to show hes cool and has access to this cool stuff, but that he is holding on to these things in part to use them, to use them against enemies. And those enemies are not foreign enemies, are not the usual people you think about when you think about national security secrets. Theyre about his own political enemies or domestic enemies. And to me, that question sort of why is he holding on to this was answered in that moment.

I agree with you, Carlos, that, yes, hes not just holding onto them the way he holds on to other souvenirs that he likes to show off, which is obviously always

Fake Time Magazine covers.

Exactly. I mean, that is one reason why hes holding onto them, but yes, he also has scores to settle related to Russiagate, related to, presumably, January 6. I think the Milley example is striking because the reality was that throughout Trumps presidency, his generals constantly put one over on him, right? Trump would announce were pulling out of Syria, and then the generals would Im exaggerating for effect here, but move six submachine guns and one Navy SEAL out of Syria and tell Trump that it had been accomplished, right?

Trump repeatedly said were going to leave Afghanistan, and of course, it only happened under Joe Biden, who, whatever his other faults, is much more likely to actually do things than Donald Trump. So I dont think its a surprise at all that Milley specifically, but also the generals writ large, would be sort of a source of Trumps his unhappy memories of his presidency. I think the question of revenge, though, gets to this question, which is that a lot of Trumps presidency was just about saying things and not doing things, right?

And so, in a way, his idea of revenge is, its an open question whether its about saying things or doing things. Is President Trump in his second term going to successfully prosecute the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or is he just going to write a lot of nasty tweets about him? And this is the question that sort of hangs over the whole Trump phenomenon.

I mean, my view of the indictments is that were sort of moving were assuming that there may be a third indictment in the state of Georgia related to Trumps election interference, his calls to Georgia State officials demanding that they discover extra votes for him. And to me, it seems like in these indictments, were moving through different phases of the Trump presidency.

That the first indictment, the New York indictment, was sort of absurd liberal prosecutorial overreach directed against Trumps sleaziness. And thats one story of the Trump administration. Trump is sleazy. Liberals overreact, violate their own norms in trying to go after him. This one, this indictment is more the sort of Coen brothers burn after reading black comedy, where the stakes are a little more real. Youre actually dealing with national security secrets and so on, but Trump is still fundamentally behaving as a somewhat venal and absurd figure.

And then if we get a third indictment, that will be closer to the genuinely sinister aspect of Trump, where his venal absurdity leads him to be willing to have a constitutional crisis to steal an election he didnt win. So were sort of moving through were recapitulating the whole Trump presidency through these indictments. Its very, very entertaining.

And along the way, were kind of looking at what hes done to the Republican Party because whatever you think of the first indictment in New York, which I was not that crazy about, this one

Not your favorite indictment.

No, my favorite indictment is Georgia. I have ranked my indictments on a little chart in my room, and Im clicking through them

The indictment does not exist yet. Thats your favorite?

Yeah, the indictment to come, but

Thats resistance liberalism at its finest. Its always the next indictment.

But the question here is, how is his party responding, the party that he has captured, that he has traumatized. And so far, if you look at the Republican contenders, with a couple of exceptions, its kind of weak. I mean, Chris Christie has come out swinging. Mitt Romney, in Mitt Romneys usual role, has come out saying this is disgraceful. Asa Hutchinson, who nobody even knows who he is, but hes running for president as well, has said these should be taken seriously.

But everybody else is pretty much like, nah, big deal. Guy stored some documents in his toilet. Does it really matter? I mean, he didnt really sell them to the foreign forces that be, so do we really care? I mean, whats the big deal? Which, I think for the party of law and order and the rule of law, is pretty fantastic.

Its not just the party of law and order and the rule of law. Its also the party that, for a long time, has painted itself as stronger on national security than the Democrats. And thats where looking into the specifics of what these documents are, is vital. I mean, I love burn after reading. But this is more than just like we need to talk about the security of your shit, right? This is US nuclear weapons program information. This is defense capabilities of the United States and other countries, vulnerabilities of the U.S and its allies to attack, plans of retaliation in case of foreign attack. At least from the description in the indictment, this is very high level material.

The description provided by the National Security of States.

Of course. I mean, just of course. And so, again, its not just that Republicans may be hypocritical when it comes to being the party of law and order, but also as the party of national security.

Yes, I mean theyre completely hypocritical. I think thats perfectly obvious. The sort of considered Republican view, to the extent that you can say one is considered, is that once Hillary Clinton was let off the hook for her Homebrew server that effectively created a zone of non-prosecution that encompasses Trump, I think its pretty clear that what Trump did is more prosecutorable. Thats not the right word, but you know what I mean.

Prosecutable.

Prosecutable thats an even better and actually existing word in the sense that Trump was repeatedly told, please dont do this or you will be prosecuted, and continued to do it, which is different.

And continued to scheme very aggressively to make

Yes, very aggressive.

sure it didnt get done.

Aggressive scheming that he did not successfully conceal. So I think this does clearly go further than the Hillary example. But that is sort of the Republican theory of the case, basically, that

But her emails.

Well, I mean, you guys dont think, right? I mean, it was good, right, that Trump didnt prosecute Hillary Clinton for the emails. You guys agree with that, right?

So what youre saying is manslaughter is exactly the same thing as first degree murder.

Interesting.

People are prosecuted for both, though, Michelle.

It is an inexact analogy, Ill grant you. But its like in for a penny, in for a pound. Once youve kind of let something slide, you might as well let everything slide, no matter how hard theyve tried to cover it up or scheme or lie or ignore subpoenas, that sort of thing.

The irony of the Hillary example is that in the indictment, isnt there a moment where Trump is saying, like, gosh, Hillary did it right. She got some lower level person to scrub the 30,000 emails. And yeah, and I should have someone to do that for me.

That was clearly his underlying message, is why arent you doing this for me?

But that, again, gets to his failure as a mob boss, which is that hes always trying to do things himself.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Lets take a quick break here. When we come back, well talk about the consequences for Trump and for the country from this indictment.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

And were back. So these indictments of a former president are, to use a vastly overused word, unprecedented, but so is the fact that this indicted former president is a candidate in the next presidential election. And so far, as Michelle said, theres been sort of a meh reaction among a lot of his challengers. What does that say to the two of you?

I think that with the Republican field, this just sort of cements the reality that the sort of Ron DeSantis strategy is to hope that things like this indictment contribute to a general exhaustion with Trump and a desire not to do it again, rather than some dramatic Republican voters turning on him. And so everything that DeSantis and others who actually want to win the Republican nomination are trying to do is premised on that strategy. But that strategy does involve, essentially, a tap dance where you minimize the significance of what Trump has done.

How is that strategy consistent with DeSantis and others going out and saying that this is this grave miscarriage of justice and weaponization of justice in America, et cetera, et cetera?

Because I think DeSantiss strategy is to say, look, the liberals are out to get Trump, and the liberals are terrible, and we all agree on that. The problem is that Trump is giving them too many opportunities and making it too easy for them. And this is where the deep flaw in the DeSantis strategy may be, that its impossible to make a subtle argument against Donald Trump. But subtly, the point would be, look, arent you a little bit tired of the liberals always having these opportunities? I wont sleep with porn stars. I wont store documents in my bathroom. I wont hire people who I then decide are terrible and so on. Vote for me.

Just reading the indictment gave me a game of Clue kind of vibe. When you mentioned the bathroom, Ross, its the valet with the boxes in the storage room, right? Or its the lawyer in the hotel room with the folder.

With the folder.

It just seems so comical and reckless. Yet at the same time, the indictment is trying to make it extremely serious and premeditated. And one of the things that struck me as different from past investigations is that they try to make very clear that Trump understood what he was doing and had clear knowledge of his wrongdoing, right? At first, it seems like theyre just being annoying. And they cite all the times during the 2016 campaign when Trump was explaining why we have to take classified information seriously. We cant have someone in the Oval Office who doesnt understand the meaning of the word classified.

But in the Mueller report, they bent over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt. And now thats not the case at all. Theyre making it as clear as they can in the indictment that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. And its more like the January 6 report, which goes out of its way to say Trump knew that he had lost. He knew that everything that was coming up was not making his case, and he kept saying it anyway. So this feels like its kind of learned from Muellers mistakes and adopted more of a January 6 model.

And its not going to make any difference to his voters. So the interesting thing will be, are we going to see a third indictment as this goes along? And will he just be doubling down every time? And I think the answer is yes from everything weve seen. I mean, the great thing about being a demagogue is every time you wind up in trouble with the system, your response is, its because the system is corrupt, and theyre out to get me. So I think this is a very serious case. And I dont actually think it will make much I dont think itll make any political difference.

Well, itll make a difference. I mean, look, these things hurt Trump as a general election candidate, I think, in pretty obvious ways. Multiple indictments does not help you win over the voter who, lets say, swung from Obama to Trump and then back to Biden, right? That voter is not going to be excited about voting for the guy who has been indicted three times.

But another core question, though, is just the logistics of all this. And were not legal experts, but this is also uncharted territory, so even legal experts are uncertain, right? How fast does this prosecution actually happen? It seems like they have Trump dead to rights in a way that would normally occasion some kind of plea. But the politics of pleading guilty seem to be a little dicey for Trump.

But then theres the other question of does this actually yield jail time if convicted, right? I believe that David Petraeus, with his showing classified elements to his mistress scandal, I think he got two years of probation and a fine. Is that correct?

Well, Ive repressed that whole episode.

Well, Trump gives us the highly comedic version of this, but Donald Trump is certainly not the first high placed official to have some trouble with classified documents.

It just never occurred to me that people do jail time.

It doesnt? So that doesnt occur to you, OK. So if he doesnt

It never occurs.

If he thinks hell never do jail time

You mean for this or for any of this?

For this.

Well have to see about

How about your favorite nonexistent indictment?

I will have to see how the Georgia indictment goes, but I actually just dont think for this one, I dont think hes going to see jail time. I think theres vanishingly little chance.

OK, so you think its some kind of Petraeus-style sentence.

Of course, if he winds up convicted

Petraeus, for the record, was fined 40 grand and two years probation.

Yeah, OK, so thats the Petraeus sentence.

Hes not allowed to store sensitive documents in his john anymore, how is that?

OK, OK.

Slap on the wrist type thing.

So a slap on the wrist. So thats not that politically damaging in the end.

Yeah, although he said even if hes convicted, he will stay in this race. What was that he said this past weekend?

Thats the biggest applause line he gets.

Either the Communists win or we win. Its the final battle? Hes just so grand with all of this.

And one of the big moments when he got the most applause when he was speaking in Columbus, Georgia was, theyre not really coming after me. Theyre coming after you. Im just the guy standing between you.

More:
Opinion | Just When You Thought There Was Nothing New to Learn About Donald Trump - The New York Times

Donald Trumphad trouble obtaining counsel for his arraignment in Florida on Tuesday, a legal source tells PEOPLE, after two of his lawyers quit the same day a federal indictment was made public.

The former president is making his first appearance at the Miami federal courthouse Tuesday afternoon to be arraigned, just a few days after he wasindicted by a federal grand jury. In an unsealed, 38-count indictment, prosecutors allege Trump, 76, retained over 100 classified documents with some of the most sensitive topics originating from seven intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA and Department of Defense.

Amid the chaos of the indictment being unsealed on Friday, two of Trump's attorneys Jim Trusty and John Rowley announced they were stepping back from their roles.

With his latest legal troubles, Trump appears to be facing another challenge: finding people to represent him in the case.

One of his PAC heads called six law firms in Florida to represent the former president and they all said no, a plugged in legal source tells PEOPLE.

The source adds that Trump "is still looking desperately. It could work to Trumps advantage though to see what this Trump-appointed judge does if he doesnt have adequate legal representation in Florida."

It was ultimately decided that attorneys Todd Blanche, who represented Trump at his April arraignment in a separate criminal case, and Chris Kine, the former solicitor general of Florida, would be by the former president's side in Miami on Tuesday.

Stephanie Keith/Getty

Attorneys may be wary of defending the former president based on the indictment recently unsealed by federal authorities, which lays out the case against him and includes mention of how Trump allegedly told his own attorneys to lie to authorities about federal documents.

The indictment and arraignment come months after the FBI searchedthe former president's Mar-a-Lago home and a subpoena from federal authorities requested that Trump hand over any classified documents he had brought with him after leaving the White House.

According to the indictment, Trump suggested that his attorneys lie to the FBI and the grand jury by telling them he "did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena.

Trump also allegedly had his personal valet, Walt Nauta (who is also charged in the case), move classified documents "to conceal them from Trumps attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury.

One of Trumps attorneys told investigators that the former president told his legal team he didnt want anybody looking at his documents and made comments such as, Well what if we, what happens if we just dont respond at all or dont play ball with [the FBI]?

Trump also said, according to the attorney, Wouldnt it be better if we just told them we dont have anything here? ... Well look isnt it better if there are no documents?

Elsewhere in the indictment, the same attorney details how he asked Trump whether he should take one of the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and place it in a safe at his hotel room. Trump, the attorney told investigators, made a funny motion as though well okay why dont you take them with you to your hotel room and if theres anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion that he made. He didnt say that.

Never miss a story sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

Now, the legal source tells PEOPLE, Trump is looking for young lawyers to make himself look better and because he doesnt think older lawyers have the ability to help him in this serious situation."

The source adds: He worries they are too old and dont have the in-depth knowledge of what they can use in his defense. They are basically too removed.

Read more from the original source:
Donald Trump 'Desperately' Looked for Lawyers over the Weekend: Source - PEOPLE