Elections and Fraud
Some claim that the Biden Administration “weaponized” the justice system to arbitrarily go after a presidential candidate, Donald Trump. The lack of persuasive evidence of deliberate abuse of the justice system is just one of the problems with this thesis. At the least, legal actions involving Trump and his conduct of the Presidency go well beyond the Biden administration: there are, as examples, federal investigations finding substantial evidence of criminal conduct that were not acted upon because acting Presidents are not subject to criminal prosecutions; state law criminal cases as well public and private civil actions, some alleging intentional torts such as sexual misconduct, defamation, or serious acts of fraud. There is no evidence that the Biden administration engineered the state or private actions, nor that the White House invaded the Justice Department’s independent role in managing the federal criminal justice system. Moreover, the actions of Trump leading to these legal actions present persuasive evidence that he is not committed to the rule of law or the principles of avoiding harm to others and implementing basic fairness.
Illustrative is the recent state prosecution that charged Trump with fraudulently paying large sums of hush money to hide Trump’s tryst with adult movie star, Stormy Daniels. Testimony showed that the purpose was to enhance Trump’s chance to win the presidency. A tricky legal issue concerned whether the deliberate hiding of Trump’s marital infidelity amounted to a felonious state election law violation. Trump’s lawyer and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, arranged the payment and had earlier pled guilty to a voting law felony under federal law. The trial judge ruled that these acts were felonies under New York law. But however the legal issue was resolved, there would remain the question of the extent of his wrongfulness: first is the question as to his infidelity; second, as to his dishonesty in hiding his marital infidelity; finally, Trump knew that widespread public knowledge of his unfaithful acts would probably take away his election hopes.
As if his infidelity and dishonesty, were not enough, at least as serious morally was the proof that Trump relied on more than one dirty election trick to ensure his election victory. David Pecker of the National Inquirer, testified that the publication had acted to enhance Trump’s reputation and to undercut the standing of his opponents. As one example, Pecker testified that the National Inquirer fabricated a photography alleged to be Lee Harvey Oswald and Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael Crux, from the period in which President Kennedy was killed. The photography was widely used by Trump during the primaries leading to his election. In addition, the Inquirer learned of an alleged ten-month affair between Trump and a Playboy model, Karen McDougal; it offered her $150, 000 to not cooperate in publishing a story concerning their relationship. Since the point of this setup is to “catch” the story, and then prevent its publication, such a practice is often called a “catch-and-kill” arrangement. If one has doubt as to whether Trump’s behavior should have cost him the election, it might help to compare his behavior to a front runner, Gary Hart, whose infidelity revealed during the 1988 primary campaign led to his withdrawal from the race.
Legal&Political 