Count me among those who are skeptical about indicting former president Donald Trump on charges that he tried to cover up an affair by paying off a porn star and misrepresenting the expenditure in his business records. Isn’t this what the Bible calls straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?
Trump has plenty of camels. He called Georgia’s secretary of state and urged him—using not-so-subtle hints of retaliation—to “find” precisely the number of extra votes that Trump needed to win the state. Trump may have mishandled classified documents. He has a long history of questionable business practices. At least one woman is accusing him of rape. And, most alarming, he may have tried to engineer an insurrection.
In light of all this, how important is the charge that Trump was willing to misrepresent hush money payments to cover up an affair, even if the exposure of his dalliance with a porn star might have had an effect on the 2016 election?
But the problem that faced Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg was not whether to charge Trump for a crime that might seem trivial to some; the problem was finding a rationale for not charging Trump if—and this appears to be the case—Bragg would have been obligated to charge the rest of us under similar circumstances.
I’m sure that Bragg spent a few sleepless nights over whether to indict Trump on these charges. Trump’s response to any allegation is predictable: He’s always the victim of a witch hunt drummed up by liberals or Democratic congressmen or the deep state or Republicans in Name Only or political rivals or disgruntled women.
And, indeed, Trump wasted no time in accusing Bragg—without evidence—of a nefarious political motivation. Maybe. But it’s worth remembering that a politically motivated indictment would have had to emerge from a corrupted grand jury. And a conviction will have to result from a unanimously compromised jury of Trump’s peers. What are the chances of that?
Trump will plead not guilty, and if the charges are groundless our justice system is very likely to vindicate him. Some Republicans have already voiced the counterintuitive notion that Trump’s indictment will actually help him politically. Imagine what a vindication will do for him?
So if Bragg is acting out of a political motivation, he’s taking a big chance. Still, as others have noted, to fail to indict Trump in order to help Democrats is also a political act. Better to rely on the American justice system, which, while far from perfect, has served us well.
The Trump indictment happens to follow closely on my recent readings of biographies of Richard Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford. Ford’s pardoning of Nixon after his resignation from the presidency figures prominently in both. Ford always contended that had he not bestowed the pardon, Nixon’s indictment and trial would have dominated and paralyzed Ford’s presidency. The “national nightmare” would have continued.
Perhaps. But it’s hard not to wonder if the pardon doesn’t reflect a tacit understanding that when it comes to rich people, white people, celebrities and the well-connected, we nearly always do our best to look the other way. As Trump put it on the "Access Hollywood" tape: “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
Last week’s indictment affirms that in our country you can’t commit crimes with impunity, even if you are a rich, white, well-connected celebrity. Or even an ex-president.
Back to Biblical terms: Misrepresenting hush money to cover up an affair is a gnat; attempting to reverse a legitimate American election is a camel.
But if we ignore the gnat, we’re more likely to swallow the camel. And we still have to face the complicated problem of finding a justification for ignoring an alleged crime in a country that aspires to hold everyone to the same legal standard.
Besides, the Bible also says that whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
