Indict another day

Donald Trump has now been indicted enough times for there to be a sense of routine around the news of a fresh batch of charges. The former president warns that an indictment is coming. Then it arrives, it’s unsealed, and he’s arraigned. Trump’s Republican primary rivals respond, their choice of words assessed for signs of obsequiousness and defiance (the former are usually easier to find than the latter). The jurisdiction and likely make-up of the jury is debated. As are the prejudices of the judge, when the name becomes known.

And so yesterday when Trump was indicted…

Donald Trump has now been indicted enough times for there to be a sense of routine around the news of a fresh batch of charges. The former president warns that an indictment is coming. Then it arrives, it’s unsealed, and he’s arraigned. Trump’s Republican primary rivals respond, their choice of words assessed for signs of obsequiousness and defiance (the former are usually easier to find than the latter). The jurisdiction and likely make-up of the jury is debated. As are the prejudices of the judge, when the name becomes known.

And so yesterday when Trump was indicted for the third time this year, in relation to January 6, there was a familiar, inevitable, almost unremarkable feel to what is, by any reasonable measure, a grave moment for the country. Trump is a former president accused of conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. In his indictment, Special Counsel Jack Smith alleges that Trump “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.”

Trump now faces a total of seventy-eight criminal counts, the maximum sentences for which add up to hundreds of years in prison. Depending on who you ask, Trump’s legal woes are either a measure of his own multifarious misconduct, or proof of a corrupt establishment out to get him. Writing for The Spectator, Jacob Heilbrunn argues it’s the former. Either way, it is serious business — serious enough that the former president’s alleged criminality is set to dominate our politics in the coming months. Next year promises to be a tangle of presidential debates, campaign stops, primary votes — and courtroom drama.

In January, on the same day as the Iowa caucuses, Trump faces another defamation lawsuit from E. Jean Carroll. In March, a few weeks after Super Tuesday, he will face trial in the New York hush-money case. In May, the far more serious classified documents trial will begin in Florida. Smith has called for a speedy trial in this latest election-related case, though an exact date has not been fixed.

Whatever the timetable for Smith’s case, 2024 will pit one group rooting for justice in the courtroom and another hoping it will come at the ballot box. A third group recognizes the former president in the cases made against him but worries that America cannot handle the kind of winner-take-all lawfare that both parties seem to want. It sets up an ugly, unedifying and destabilizing election cycle.

On our radar

HUNTER THE HOMEWRECKER? The Daily Mail reports that Hunter Biden owes his former landlord $80,000 in unpaid rent and left the $4.2 million Venice Beach property he moved into in 2021 in “disarray and disrepair” when he moved out.

WH MICROCHIP ADVISOR STEPS DOWN You probably haven’t heard of Ronnie Chatterji. But his role as advisor to the president on microchips made him a vital behind-the-scenes figure on an issue of considerable economic and geopolitical importance. Politico reports that Chatterji will be leaving the White House and returning to his old job as a professor at Duke.

RNC raises the bar for second debate

The Republican National Committee is increasing the requirements for presidential candidates seeking to qualify for the party’s second debate next month at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

Candidates will need to reach at least 3 percent in two national polls or one national and two state polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada to qualify for the September 27 debate, according to Politico. For this month’s upcoming debate in Wisconsin, candidates only need to hit 1 percent to qualify. The RNC has also increased the total number of donors from 40,000 to 50,000 with 200 individuals in at least twenty states. The polls must be “conducted with large sample sizes and by firms that are not affiliated with any of the candidates.”

So far seven candidates have qualified for the first GOP debate to be held August 23 in Milwaukee — former president Donald Trump, North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. Although he has reached 3 percent in national polls, former vice president Mike Pence still has not met the donor threshold.

Trump has remained noncommittal about attending the debate despite leading the pack in fundraising and polling. “You’re leading people by fifty or sixty points, you say, why would you be doing a debate?” Trump said on Fox News in July. “It’s actually not fair. Why would you let someone who’s at zero or one or two or three be popping you with questions?”

Were the new debate qualifications to be rolled out sooner, most of the top candidates would still meet the polling requirements. All except Burgum have polled above 3 percent nationally in the latest Morning Consult poll. Polls taken in mid and late July show that each of the top seven candidates have also reached 3 percent percent in at least two early nominating states.

With the increased donor requirements, it is possible that candidates continue to get more creative with their fundraising schemes. So far, Burgum has given $20 gift cards in exchange for $1 donations, and Ramaswamy’s campaign has pledged to give donors 10 percent of the total amount of money they raise.

–Michael Bachmann

Supreme disagreement

CNN reports that the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts has been working to find consensus on new ethics standards for the court — but members have yet to agree to anything. There is apparently disagreement among the justices about how best to proceed and what new ethics protocols should be instituted. The debate comes amid ethics concerns raised by ProPublica and other outlets about both conservative and liberal justices. It is important to note, however, that none of the justices are accused of violating ethics rules, as the activities in question occurred before recent ethics code changes.

–John Pietro