Not many people would think just before walking into court to face fraud allegations to call the case against them a “sham” and a “witch-hunt”. Nor would they step out during the first day of the trial to say this:
He [the judge] ruled that we lost a big part of the case, because he’s a Democrat club politician. He’s a Democrat operative, and he’s a disgrace to people that call themselves judges. And I hope my lawyers go in, and I hope they fight him very hard, because this guy’s getting away with murder.
Donald Trump did, and then he walked back into court, resuming his arms-crossed glare at Justice Arthur Engoron of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The judge maintained his unruffled, smiling demeanour while the prosecutor, New York Attorney-General Letitia James — who Trump has publicly called “corrupt and racist” — carried on burying Trump and his sons in evidence of their decades-long systematic fraudulent business practices.
Engoron, who Trump had earlier labelled a “Trump-hating judge who is unfair, unhinged and vicious”, has already ruled that Trump persistently committed fraud, the evidence so overwhelming that it didn’t need to be proved at trial. He’s now going to determine how big the fine will be — the DA wants $250 million — and whether the Trumps should be permanently banned from doing business in New York.
You might think that that’s a judge you wouldn’t want to be pissing off just now.
But there’s normal, and there’s Trump. Ever digging, never digging up. The media, we know, has consistently mishandled him. Can the legal system do a better job?
If this were a court in Australia or the UK or anywhere else, Trump would (well, should) be cooling his heels in the cells, held in flagrant contempt of court. America preserves a uniquely wide field for outrageous utterances due to its commitment to free speech; the law there is that the state can only punish false statements about official conduct, including that of judges, made with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, their falsity.
Still, Trump has been unconstrained in his slander of every judge, court and DA in the many criminal and civil prosecutions he is facing; if his conduct doesn’t amount to reckless disregard at least, I’m not sure what could.
Contempt of court exists for one reason only: courts and judges, and the verdicts they make, are society’s chosen mechanism for maintenance of the compact of civility. Human society necessarily generates disputes and wrongs; there is no objective measure of right and wrong so we need umpires to say who wins. The compact works only so far as we all agree to go along with the answers we’re given. The alternative is anarchy.
Since the carrot of peaceful coexistence isn’t enough, the stick of contempt punishes disobedience of the courts’ verdicts, and goes further to also punish anyone whose behaviour risks undermining everyone’s confidence in the system itself.
In 2017, three Australian Liberal federal ministers — Greg Hunt, Alan Tudge and Michael Sukkar — made public statements regarding Victorian Supreme Court decisions in terrorism cases, calling them “ideological” and “divorced from reality”, by “hard-left activist judges”.
This had them hauled up on contempt charges, which they narrowly avoided with a grovelling backdown and apology. Order was thus restored. Our courts don’t muck around with this shit, to the point sometimes of arguable over-sensitivity.
Meanwhile, in America, while things are generally different (as you’ll know if you’ve ever seen the way its lawyers carry on in public) the same fundamental proposition applies: public confidence in the justice system requires that a base level of respect for the courts is maintained. Trump is busily pants-down crapping all over that notion.
We saw on January 6, 2020, the consequences of Trump’s contempt for the institutions of Congress and the election process — a violent attempted coup. Trump’s own party had enabled, excused and encouraged his recklessness, and the media had gone along for the ride (Fox News went further, madly throwing fuel on the fire). They all failed their responsibilities.
In the aftermath, Trump filed at least 63 lawsuits in state and federal courts in an attempt to use the legal system to overturn the election result. All failed, because they were completely baseless. The courts stood up — in fact, the majority of judges who ruled on the federal cases were Trump appointees. Even his hand-picked Supreme Court preferred the law over his demands.
It took several years before the chickens of his criminality began roosting in the courts, driven by implacable prosecutors. Now Trump is defending himself by attacking the institutions of the law, using the same language as he did against the constitution, with the same intent.
This is another contest of wills, this time between two forces who won’t back down. Trump is calling the whole justice system a fraud and, when it holds him to account, he will call on his followers to burn it to the ground.
The courts are the ultimate backstop of democracy. They cannot fail the test Trump is forcing them to take.
“The courts are the ultimate backstop of democracy.” Maybe, where they haven’t been stacked with far-right Republicans. Unfortunately, the highest court in the US has been, and is now actively engaged in rolling back civil rights and democracy wherever it can.
Closely followed by Israel.
With constant attacks by other Western “Democracies” on the Courts.
SCOTUS and appointments for past decade have been via lobbying by the Federalist Society, part of the fossil fueled Christian nationalist authoritarians in Koch’s Donor Network; their new plan for any GOP Presidency is ‘Project 2025’, as promoted via Heritage Foundation.
What a sublime blend of arrogance and stupidity Trump is..!!
I really hope those judges take the insults and abuse to heart, and hand out extra harsh penalties.
They need to make Trump a glowing example for other politicians that might wish to emulate his antisocial strategy.
Once Trump is “cooling his heels in a cell”, the lunatic red fringe might start calming down.
One thing is increasingly clear. Another Trump presidency will end American democracy. It is agonising to see the slow pace of US justice (specially with Trump’s endless stalling and appeals) which is no match for his inflammatory style. Surely old style GOP supporters have had enough?
Engoron’s ‘unruffled, smiling demeanour’ must be driving Trump to distraction. Trump thrives on being in charge & exploiting a position of his own perceived power. Alas, the defendant can’t declare ‘You’re fired!’ as on a TV show set, he’s effectively gagged while the court is in session.
Trump is, of course, the greatest at everything. He’s attracted the greatest number of charges of any US President & is the victim of the greatest witch hunt in US history. Here’s hoping he makes the greatest inmate.
“Make America Great Again” by being the greatest threat to peace and democracy the USA has faced since the cold war? Dear oh dear.
He should open the Trump Prison or Jail complete with gold bars and chintzy decor! Plenty of corporate criminals out there who certainly deserve to be locked up. Of course they have been more clever than Trump and apparently not actually broken the law or not been charged- yet!
I’d prefer to say the courts are the ultimate backstop of the rule of law. If we want to call the USA a democracy (it’s a very rubbery and vague word with a baffling range of interpretations available), then upholding the rule of law there will include protecting its democracy. But in any country, democratic or not, the rule of law requires, among other things, courts with the necessary integrity, competence and independence to do their job. The USA’s courts are a motley bunch in those respects, and the federal Supreme Court in particular is ideologically deeply compromised and some justices are blatantly corrupt.
Yet even if the courts in the USA pass the test Bradley describes and hold Trump to account, Trump can still be the Republican candidate in the next presidential election and can still become president in 2024 (either elected or else seizing the job through a more successful coup than the last one; the Republicans have learned lessons from that experience). If that happens it is very likely any court proceedings against Trump under way and any convictions will be rendered moot by Trump using the presidency to nullify them. Of course it is much more tricky for a (federal) president to interfere in state courts, but where there’s a will there’s a way. Trump would find ways, such as cutting off recalcitrant states from all federal government programmes and funding. He was bullying certain states last time he was president when they defied him. (It works in Australia – the AU federal government bullied all states into passing cycling helmet laws by threatening to cut all their road funding if they did not. Control of funding gives enormous power to the federal government over matters which are ostensibly and constitutionally purely for the states.)
…cycling helmet laws…