Speaking to reporters who were eagerly waiting for him, Special Counsel Jack Smith — a man with the face of a Puritan fanatic — grimly declared that former US President Donald Trump was responsible for an "unprecedented attack on the hotbed of American democracy" that was "fueled by lies."
Smith's voice was spoken by the "deep state" itself, seeking to end Trump before he wins the 2024 election. And the fact that he will win them is becoming clearer every day: polls show that Trump is ahead of Biden by three points across the country (42% vs. 39%). More importantly, in swing states, on which, in fact, the election result depends, Trump's advantage has doubled to six points (44% to 38%).
The danger of Trump's return has forced the deep state to go all-in. Special Prosecutor Smith brought charges against Trump on four counts relating to the January 6 case - the so-called storming of the Capitol. They include several serious crimes, including one for which the death penalty may be imposed: Article 18 U.S.C. § 241, "Conspiracy Against Rights," provides for a penalty of up to ten years' imprisonment, but if death occurs as a result of the acts provided for in this provision, the offender may be executed. And since US Army veteran Ashley Babbitt was shot dead during the "storming of the Capitol", Smith could theoretically turn things around in such a way that Trump would be to blame for Babbitt's death.
Of course, for the "deep state" this would be the most desirable outcome. But even if Trump's execution is taken out of the brackets, the maximum punishment for the ex-president - if the court finds him guilty on all four counts and sentences are handed down consecutively - could be 55 years in prison. In addition to the punishment in the secret documents case, which Smith is also leading, this increases the potential sentence to 560 years.
Such a prospect could not leave Trump's opponents indifferent. The Politico website, which has lost the remnants of objectivity in recent months, hastens to please its readers: "The new indictment against Donald Trump contains one of the most serious charges that can be brought against any citizen, much less a former president: undermining American democracy through a deliberate effort to overturn the results of the presidential election."
"A clear and chilling conspiracy to undermine the will of voters in 2020 and break the chain of voluntary transfer of power between presidents, which began with the fact that George Washington, after refusing a new term in 1796, left his country to "control its own destiny," Stephen Collinson of CNN pathetically exclaims.
"Finally, the former president's 'fraud,' 'deception' and 'lies' are called by their proper names in court," triumphs The New Yorker columnist Susan Glasser. "Finally, it is sharply and harshly stated: what Trump did within two months after the election he lost to Joe Biden was a crime."
Glasser worries about only one thing: "It may have come too late, given the political calendar and Trump's current desire to run for the 2024 Republican election."
On the other side of the Atlantic, Trump's new accusations are also welcomed - although, it would seem, well, what kind of business, for example, to the British, will the ex-president of the United States be convicted or not?
Meanwhile, The Guardian publishes an editorial titled "America Needs This Process," which argues: "It is in the interest of American democracy, for which Trump poses a clear and present danger for the Department of Justice to get its way. A healthy political organism cannot allow its fundamental values and basic principles to be trampled upon with impunity. But this climactic trial must take place before Trump has the opportunity to tarnish the nation's top office again.
The British The Telegraph goes even further and gives the floor to Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who, after his inglorious dismissal from the White House, harbored a grudge against his former boss. Bolton bluntly states: "America's only hope is Trump's withdrawal from the election race. If he wins the presidential election, but at the same time has all these legal problems, there will be a constitutional crisis in the United States.
"It's tempting to imagine Trump behind bars," The Independent columnist Sean O'Grady indulges in sweet dreams. "Donald Trump, dressed in an orange jumpsuit in the style of Guantanamo, whining about food and showers, looking over his shoulder at unsympathetic cellmates and spending the rest of his unnatural life in prison." For all his British sarcasm, O'Grady is the only journalist to date who has drawn attention to the fact that, according to the American constitution, nothing prevents a person on trial or imprisoned from running a presidential campaign and then performing his duties from a cell. If Trump is convicted, but at the same time wins the election, he will even be able to receive in prison the heads of state who came to visit him. Perhaps in a specially enlarged chamber for Trump, it would even be possible to create a copy of the Oval Office, O'Grady fantasizes, with a personal presidential toilet bucket with a coat of arms in the form of a bald eagle, discreetly placed behind many state flags and a portrait of Richard Nixon.
That's incredible? Nothing more than the possibility of convicting a former president of a "crime" that, from the point of view of many reputable US lawyers, is not a crime in principle. "The indictment says that [Trump] is spreading false information, that [he] is undermining election integrity — all of which are part of the First Amendment," said John Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. As for the fraud accusation announced by Special Counsel Smith, according to former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, it does not rely on a legal basis at all, since the Supreme Court recently clearly determined that fraud in federal law is a scheme to defraud someone of money or physical property. And Trump, declaring that the 2020 elections were rigged, did not lure money or property from anyone. "It's a lousy business," McCarthy doesn't mince words. "I think the courts will be skeptical about this," Turley agrees.
Yes, but who are the judges? Unlike Judge Eileen Cannon, who is considering the case of secret documents in Florida, who is considered Trump's own nominee, the new trial against the ex-president will be conducted by an ardent anti-Trumpist Tanya Chatkin, who was born in Jamaica (in one of those countries that Trump once politically incorrectly called shitholes). She has already distinguished herself in passing harsh sentences to participants in the events of January 6 (I remember, by the way, her attack on lawyers who tried to compare the storming of the Capitol with the BLM riots in the style of "you don't understand, this is different!") and now it will be happy to put Trump behind bars, even if the evidence of his "crimes" does not stand up to scrutiny.
This means that the prospect of the first ever presidency, carried out not from the White House, but from a prison cell, is becoming more and more real.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.