Justice Has Been Done
Donald Trump has finally been subjected to the rule of law. We should appreciate this moment and understand that, whatever the outcome, the system worked.
1. Law & Order
The first criminal trial of Donald Trump was everything that a society committed to the rule of law can hope for.
In March of 2023, when the world first began to grapple with the notion that Trump might be indicted in Manhattan on charges of election fraud, people expressed a number of concerns. All of them have been allayed.
Let’s walk through those prior concerns, one at a time.
(1) The district attorney’s case was frivolous, weak, or unwise. This was overreach. The prosecution presented a detailed, evidence-laden case. The evidence was so substantial that it it now clear that not charging Trump would have been contrary to the interests of justice.
(2) This application of the law was too novel. The prosecution’s case survived pretrial motions and went the distance to the jury. That base fact means that even if the district attorney’s interpretation of the law was not routine, it was clearly within bounds.
(3) The timing was bad. Many people worried that the Manhattan election fraud case was the weakest of the four potential indictments against Trump and so having that indictment arrive first would lessen the public’s understanding of the other three, and thus subtract from any accountability for Trump.
As it happens, the Manhattan case was the only one of the indictments able to make it to trial. Without Alvin Bragg’s indictment, there would have been no legal accountability for Trump prior to the 2024 election and voters would have a much less complete set of information on which to base their choices.
(4) The trial was about a porn star. The evidence presented at trial, in the form of testimony and contemporaneous documentation, made it clear that this case was not about paying hush money to a porn star. It was about the commission of election fraud: A presidential candidate engaged in a conspiracy to pay for the suppression of information for the express purpose of influencing the election and then falsified records to hide this payment.
(5) The trial would be a circus. Donald Trump tried very hard to make the trial a circus. He continually disparaged the judge, the judge’s family, and members of the prosecution’s team. He held press conferences outside the courthouse. He engaged in courtroom antics, such as feigning sleep. (And actually falling asleep.)
But Judge Juan Merchan kept control of the trial and never allowed the proceedings to devolve out of order. What we saw was a well-run criminal trial that was notable only because of the identity of the defendant.
(6) Trump couldn’t get a fair trial. Both the prosecution and the defense are satisfied that they were able to impanel an impartial jury of Trump’s peers. The Biden administration stayed far away from the case and never gave even the appearance of interference.
The judge likewise avoided even the appearance of partiality.
And Trump’s lawyers mounted a vigorous defense.
Fair is fair.
We will soon have a verdict. If I had to put odds on it, I’d say 54 percent for a conviction, 2 percent for an acquittal, and 44 percent for a hung jury that results in a mistrial.
And even if Trump is convicted, he will have the right to appeal his decision.
But whatever comes next, people who are committed to the rule of law should be satisfied that while we may not get the outcome we prefer, or think is correct, the system worked as designed.
This is what justice looks like. And when you pledge your fealty to the rule of law, that has to be enough.
2. Always Right
I sat down this morning to do some personal accountability. I went through the archives of what I wrote about this trial back in March/April of 2023, with the goal of explaining what I got wrong.
I’m a little embarrassed to say that I was right about nearly everything. I say this not to brag, but just to underline—especially for those just joining us from the Washington Post—the value proposition of this newsletter: I’m here to help you see around corners.
If you’d been reading the Triad last year, this is what you would have understood about Trump’s first indictment.
JVL on March 21, 2023, pre-indictment:
The subtext of a lot of the discourse around this possible indictment is that Donald Trump is a force of nature who does what he does and that everyone else must exercise the wisest possible judgment in dealing with the fallout of his actions.
And if a Democrat, or a prosecutor, makes a decision that might be legally supported, but is not totally and completely optimal, then they are the ones at fault.
They are the ones putting America through . . . whatever it is America would be put through.
You see this in the criticisms about “overreach.” Or the criticisms about how this particular (alleged) crime is much less important than the other (alleged) crimes for which Trump faces potential prosecution.
But is Bragg supposed to base his decision on the potential of other prosecutors in other cases to bring other indictments?
Do they want him on the phone with the other prosecutors checking on their timelines? Asking if an indictment from him would hurt their cases? Do they want him checking with pollsters if an indictment would help Trump’s political prospects?
Because, speaking only for myself, I want Bragg to follow the evidence and the law and then make the decision he thinks best represents the interests of justice.
JVL on March 31, 2023: The indictment will freeze the GOP primary.
The most immediate question is what Trump’s indictment does to the dynamics of the 2024 primary campaign. Generally speaking, there are three possibilities:
No effect: The campaign continues to develop no differently than it would have had Trump not been indicted.
Instability: The race destabilizes and becomes more volatile and less predictable.
Freeze frame: The race becomes frozen where it is.
The most likely outcome is that this indictment freezes the race where it is and makes it very hard to change its trajectory. Here’s why:
Trump’s indictment is now the top story for the 2024 presidential campaign. It will suck up all of the coverage. It’ll force Fox to kill their shadow ban on him. And here’s the key point: Every single member of the Republican party and Conservatism Inc. will have to stipulate that Trump is innocent, the prosecution is a witch hunt, and the entire case is dangerous to America.
That will be the baseline for the Republican discourse.
How is any other candidate supposed to break through? By coming up with a plan for entitlement reform?
No. The only way to get attention will be to talk about Trump and the only thing Republican voters will tolerate hearing about Trump is that he’s innocent and Alvin Bragg / the Democrats are evil and Republicans must fight for Trump.
And once you have a single dominant story with a single party line, then there are very few opportunities for anyone to provide contrast and make cases for themselves.
JVL on April 4, 2023: Trump will get a fair trial.
We will finally see the charging docs today.
It’s possible that the government’s case will be weak and that Alvin Bragg’s office is overreaching. If so, this would be bad. It would also be something prosecutors do to normal citizens all the time. There’s an entire legal movement against “overcharging,” which is what many prosecutors do as a matter of routine. They either charge a citizen for multiple crimes around a single offense (known has horizontal overcharging) or levy charges that are ludicrously inflated (known as vertical overcharging) in order to pressure the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser offense—all in the service of padding their conviction rate.
Overcharging is bad! And if the Manhattan DA’s office is doing it to Trump, then we should all hope it fails. . . .
All of which is to say that Donald Trump is likely to get the fairest treatment any American has ever gotten from our imperfect justice system.
JVL on April 5: How to stop worrying and learn to love the legal system.
This is what accountability looks like.
Trump (allegedly!) broke a bunch of laws. A number of prosecutors are investigating those (alleged!) crimes. These prosecutors found enough facts and enough law to secure an indictment. Now the process will play out.
Is it a slam-dunk? No. Is it possible that during the motions phase a New York court will decide that the district attorney has not met his burden to make the felony charge? Yes. Even if a trial judge agrees that the state is within bounds, is it possible that an appeals court will reverse it? Of course.
But that’s the justice system. Always.
The alternative is not even attempting to seek accountability for what is—again, very clearly—criminal activity, the underlying facts of which are not in dispute.
Think of it this way: In 2020, Trump’s legal team and his Republican enablers filed dozens of
bogushighly dubious lawsuits related to the election. We were told by conservatives that no matter how outlandish or amateurish these cases were, the legal process must be respected and every case must be allowed to have its day in court.And so they were.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander: This case deserves its day in court, too, and it makes no sense for Trump’s lawsuits, which sought to pervert the law, to be respected and allowed to run their course, but then argue that this case, in which some legal accountability for criminal behavior is sought, ought to have been short-circuited.
If the district attorney’s case is technically deficient, then it will be dismissed. That’s for the courts to decide.
If you’re new to The Bulwark, that’s what this newsletter is all about: Helping you see around corners.
Come and join us. This is the community you’ve been looking for.
3. Gunnar
Advanced metrics have demystified a lot about baseball and usually I lament this loss of magic. But sometimes what the numbers reveal is fascinating. Here’s why Baltimore’s Gunnar Henderson is having such a great season at the dish:
The swing powering Gunnar Henderson's quest for a 50-homer season is short and fast, simple and elegant.
Henderson's swing is much quieter than the hitters he is going blow for blow with in the MLB home run race -- Kyle Tucker and his herky-jerk twitchiness, Aaron Judge and his Ruthian hacks. But there's a reason that swing has produced 17 homers in 52 games for the Orioles' young superstar.
Start with Henderson's bat speed, which ranks in the 94th percentile of MLB hitters. Henderson, who has an average swing speed of 75.5 mph this season, is one of 19 hitters above the 75 mph mark -- Statcast's threshold for a "fast swing." . . .
But bat speed alone is not what makes Henderson such a threat to strike at the top of the order. It is that he funnels that bat speed into a swing that is quick to the baseball. Henderson has one of the shortest swings, from the start of his bat path to the moment he makes contact, of any of the hitters in that top tier of bat speed. . . .
A lot of sluggers use bigger swings to generate the bat speed for their home run power, like Judge, whose average swing length is 8.1 feet, or Schwarber, whose average swing length is 7.9 feet.
Henderson, though, hits in the style of Soto and Witt. His swing length is right at the Major League average, but his bat speed is elite. That combination is key to how he can hit like an MVP candidate as a 22-year-old. . . .
Henderson's swing path lets him square up lots of baseballs on the sweet spot of the bat, and when you do that with a high bat speed, you're going to punish the baseball. Statcast has a new stat to measure exactly that, called "blasts" -- when a hitter combines a fast swing with squared-up contact on the sweet spot.
Henderson is among the league leaders in blasts. He has 57, tied with Witt for seventh-most of any hitter. Contreras, Soto, Ohtani, Judge, Yandy Díaz and Julio Rodríguez are the only players with more.
But beyond just allowing him to blast the baseball, having a short, fast swing does two important things for Henderson.
Read the whole thing. Kids can learn a lot from Gunnar.
Judge Merchan's willingness to take one for the team in order to destroy Trump's ability to win on appeal was magnificent. He ate so much . . . guff . . . from his barking-brained defendant that he must have gagged. But he did it anyway by NOT falling into the trap of throwing Trump into Riker's for his antics. Sweet applause for a judge who ran a terrific courtroom.
"If I had to put odds on it, I’d say 54 percent for a conviction, 2 percent for an acquittal, and 44 percent for a hung jury that results in a mistrial."
These are a pretty good take on the odds I'd say. I also think a conviction is slightly more likely than a hung jury, but would not at all be surprised by a hung jury followed by Trump declaring "TOTAL EXHONERATION!" The system worked and that's what matters at the end of the day. Now it's in the hands of 12 NYCers. Even if there *is* a conviction I don't see Trump going to jail over it, I don't see this changing any of the support among Trump's base, and I don't even see it moving the needle much on the 6% of voters in the 6 swing states that are going to determine the outcome of this election. They'll be more focused on inflation, immigration, and Biden's lack of "piss and vinegar" as Tim's pod guest called it yesterday (unlike Commander, Biden himself is a dog that lacks a lot of bite).
Whether or not Trump wins this election will determine whether or not he faces justice in the cases with real prison term teeth--the TS documents and J6th cases. The Georgia case is basically frozen if Trump wins the election as well which would drag that case out into 2029 territory. The courts were never going to save us. This was always going to be about 6% of voters in 6 states determining the election outcome in 5 months' time.