Donald Trump on trial: Justice or witch hunt?

What a sight to behold! Once the world’s most powerful person, who strode majestically on the world stage, is now sitting sullenly in a New York court as an accused in a criminal trial. If convicted, he can be imprisoned for up to four years and be debarred from holding a public office for life. Of course, I am referring to former President Trump. So, has the ethos of democracy and the rule of law finally prevailed? Let’s hold judgement pending a deeper dive.

But first, the atmospherics and optics. Naturally, the high-octane spectacle has the country riveted and divided. Depending on your political affiliations, you’re either enraged or elated to see the spectacle of Trump flitting across the nation from courtroom to courtroom to defend himself in numerous civil and criminal cases, some quite serious.

The hardcore Republicans, comprising under 30 per cent of the electorate, fall into the first category and firmly believe that their leader is being subjected to vendetta. Trump accuses the current administration of orchestrating a ‘witch hunt’ ad nauseum. The Democrats, on the other hand, see it as his comeuppance and are eager to see him behind bars.

Meanwhile, the media is having a field day. Cameras are not allowed in American courtrooms, though artists can draw sketches and reporters can cover the courtroom proceedings. Lurid details of the trial hog the limelight, with substantive parts relegated to the margins, at times. Trump’s alleged scowls, naps, jury and witness intimidation, as well as the daily barrage of media statements, complaints, innuendoes, social media posts, and name-calling, provide enough grist for the mill.

Nothing is off-limits for Trump. He has roasted practically every judge, prosecutor, and witness just for doing her/his job and has hitherto been getting away with it. Any other defendant would have been hauled up for contempt of court many times over. But as is his wont, he went a bit too far in the ongoing ‘hush-money’ criminal trial in New York, presided over by Judge Juan Merchan.

The case stems from Trump’s alleged dalliance with porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal in 2006, which is not illegal in the US. However, in 2016, in the midst of his presidential race against Hillary Clinton, Daniels threatened to go public with the story, which could have caused irreparable damage to his campaign and presidential prospects. McDougal’s counsel, too, sought to have the story published.

Trump’s associates then embarked upon a so-called “catch-and-kill” practice to hush up such stories by paying off the women and buying their silence. Daniels received $130,000 from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and confidant, which was reimbursed to him as ‘legal fees’ by falsifying the business records. McDonald received $150,000. Meanwhile, the candidate maintained his innocence in public by completely denying the stories, stating that he was being viciously attacked with smears and lies.

The prosecutors see this as a criminal act, especially as it led to tax evasion and suppression of information, preventing the American voter from making an informed judgement. Numerous legal experts are not convinced and opine that the case is weak.

The Trump legal team tried hard to delay the trial until after the elections or have it shifted to another city. They have been successful in most of the cases, including three prospective criminal trials involving unlawful possession of classified documents by Trump even after demitting office and an attempted insurrection on January 6, 2021, to overturn the people’s mandate.

His lawyers took the stand that their client could not get justice in the Manhattan Court in New York, a bastion of the Democratic Party. They further alleged that Judge Merchan’s daughter had a business relationship with the Biden administration, and hence there was a conflict of interest. They demanded that the judge must recuse himself. Next, they asked that the hearing be deferred until the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity from all public or private actions. They tried to delay the jury selection. None of these worked, prompting intemperate rants from the defendant, despite numerous gag orders by the courts.

Earlier this week, Judge Merchan finally cracked the whip, holding Trump in contempt for nine violations. He imposed a $1000 fine for each violation, the maximum permitted under the law, while recognising that it may not mean anything to the defendant but ominously cautioning that further violations could even result in his incarceration.

Trump is putting up a brave front, but the legal troubles are taking their toll. He is short of funds; his campaign has lost some momentum, as he is obliged to be present in court for eight hours or more, four days a week. It may possibly have even begun to sow doubts in the minds of some supporters. In any event, his family members are conspicuously absent at the trials.

Some of his former friends and associates, including former Vice President Mike Pence, have gone cold or even turned hostile. That is not to say that his grip over the party has weakened. Very few in the Republican Party dare to cross swords with him. He continues to be ahead of President Biden in opinion polls by 4 to 6 percentage points.

That brings us back to the question about the timing of the court cases. The ‘hush-money’ case dates back eight years, and the other criminal cases date back at least three years. The civilian cases also go back in time. What were the prosecutors doing all these years? Even if he had immunity from prosecution as president, it has been over three years since he relinquished office. Is it a mere happenstance that a flurry of court cases has come up for hearing bang in the middle of the presidential campaign? If they have coalesced organically at this juncture, it is indeed too much of a coincidence!

Given the stakes involved, it is prudent not to take things at face value. The Biden administration naturally maintains that the Department of Justice and courts are independent and that it has no role to play. True, division of power is enshrined in the Constitution, but is it so watertight? Trump and his followers blame the White House for master-minding his legal troubles. He has been calling President Biden ‘crooked’ besides deploying even more colourful language. He describes the trials as an “assault on America”.

Be that as it may, it is a no-loss proposition for the ruling Democrats. If Trump is disqualified, the Republican campaign could be thrown into disarray. At the very least, the renewed spotlight on Trump’s character-flaws and misdemeanours is bound to dent his standing with the independents and moderate Republicans voters.

And yet the greatest irony is that, come November, Trump could very well succeed in reclaiming the high office. All court cases could then instantly vanish in thin air, and everything could be forgiven if not forgotten. Would therefore one be wrong to surmise that when it comes to the rich and powerful, the wheels of justice grind laboriously and selectively in the world’s oldest democracy, as they do in any other part of the world? You decide!

The author is a foreign affairs specialist and an ex-envoy to Canada and South Korea. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.