Commentary: Susan Collins and other toadying serfs of today’s GOP
Senator Susan Collins (R-Me.) issued a statement on the Trump felony verdict a few days ago:
“It is fundamental to our American system of justice that the government prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be. In this case the opposite has happened. The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct.”
Senator Collins, in a statement devoid of any facts or discussion of the actual case, predictably toadies to the Trump-controlled GOP party line. This seems to be the emerging narrative from the Trump-centered GOP: that the prosecution was purely political and may therefore help Trump in November. We’ll find out about that. But almost all of the post-verdict blather over the Trump felony verdict appears, as with Collins, to be evidence free; that is, few of the critics or critiques since the verdict really canvas the evidence and look at the process by which the jury arrived at this verdict.New York law criminalizes falsifying internal business records even when they are private and not used to cheat the tax system or defraud anyone. In New York, falsifying private business records is generally a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony only if, as the jury found here, the actions are used to cover up or conceal a crime. In this case, the jury appears to have been persuaded by the prosecution’s argument that the crime covered up was essentially a scheme to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
The prosecution of Trump is, fundamentally, only unique because only a very few people are in a position to defraud the public in a presidential election.Looking at the evidence, there is no doubt -- no reasonable doubt -- that after the disclosure of the Access Hollywood tape, Trump and his campaign (separate things) both wanted desperately to keep the public from finding out that Trump had been serially unfaithful to his wife, with a Playboy model and an adult film actress. He, with the assistance of Cohen and Trump's friends at the tabloid, arranged to pay these women off, for their silence -- so the rest of us wouldn't learn in advance of November 2016 about the loathsome creature this guy was. The prosecution's case was buttressed by an enormous body of evidence, built to pre-corroborate what would be Cohen's testimony (and hold against the inevitable attacks on Cohen's veracity and trustworthiness).The issue to cavil with can only, reasonably, be the decision to prosecute in the first place, as Collins and others appear to do. But Bragg did not run for Manhattan District Attorney on a "get Trump" platform. Articles from the time period after Bragg took office note that he stunned the public and his own staff by pausing the prior District Attorney’s investigation into the former President, which appeared to be heading toward an indictment. Two of his prosecutors were sufficiently upset by the decision that they quit. One of them called Bragg’s disinclination or hesitation to bring a case against Trump “a grave failure of justice.” In fact, Bragg slowed the investigation and prosecution, and took a very hard look at the evidence, consulted with his career prosecution staff and evaluated the wrongs at issue.
A grand jury then indicted Trump, in criminal procedure a routine and necessary step that certainly favors the prosecution view of the world. There was then extensive evidence disclosure and sharing with the defense team, which in this case appears to have been made up of experienced and skilled trial lawyers, deeply familiar with the New York courts and court system, particularly Emil Bove and Susan Necheles. They tried the case, and confronted and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses, including the crucial triumvirate of witnesses, Cohen and Daniels and Pecker.Trump and his legal team made decisions. For example, counsel for the former President – according to them, with Trump’s involvement in the decision – made a decision not to directly confront a handwritten note from former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg revealing that the $130,000 payment to Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen had been “grossed up” to $360,000, so that Cohen could avoid federal taxes. Trump's team likewise failed to confront and reduce the impact of a note from former Trump Organization controller, Jeffrey McConney, that mentioned the need to increase the payment to Cohen to cover his taxes. Moreover, Trump's legal team had no factual answer to (or, more importantly, witness to credibly and creditably rebut) the body of evidence that overwhelmingly suggested that the purpose of the overall scheme, pursuant to which records were falsified, was to help Trump's 2015 campaign, which was then thought to be in trouble against Mrs. Clinton. Trump’s legal team didn’t call Weisselberg or McConney to provide their own view of those documents. And didn’t call Trump to testify at all.And the prosecution's presentation resounded enough with the jury for 12 citizens (who themselves were seated only after significant voir dire by the lawyers, aimed at their ability to be and remain impartial), after 11 hours of deliberation, to convict Trump of the crimes asserted by the State.Juan Merchan presided over the trial and managed his courtroom very well, particularly in the face of a defendant whose principal interest and effort was to distort and discredit the judicial process in which he was entangled, and malign the people managing it. The jury wasn't composed of crazy Trump haters. Trump appears to have falsified business records for the very purpose that the prosecution posited – to keep the fact of his tryst with Daniels and affair with McDougal a secret from the voters weighing in on his fitness for our highest office. He has all his appellate rights, and access to good counsel to prosecute his appeal.
Collins and the other toadying serfs of today’s GOP had access to all of this information, and well-paid staff to distill it for them. But they opt instead to demean and vilify the bedrock system by which the rule of law is applied to all of us. It’s a disgrace, maintaining employment in a system that, at the same time, they work soullessly to tear down. But if you avoid the detail-free spin, what you will see is conduct, an investigation, a prosecution, a jury, the application of the law in a courtroom, and a big shot trying to get away with something and finally getting caught.
Christopher Cole is a lawyer who lives in Portsmouth.
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Commentary: Susan Collins and other toadying serfs of today’s GOP
