Follow this authorJennifer Rubin's opinions
Follow
A reader asks: If U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismisses the Florida case, will the Justice Department file charges re: other papers or classified leaks? Many documents were not included in the current case, and Trump is accused of talking to Mark Meadows’s biographers and an Australian businessman about classified information though they didn’t have clearance. He was not in office and could not talk about or release classified information at will as he did during his presidency.
Answer: Before resorting to that (i.e., filing a case in New Jersey concerning the documents you mention), special counsel Jack Smith would appeal. Indeed, given her egregious rulings, it is very possible he will take up one of her rulings on appeal and ask for the circuit court to remove her.
Advertisement
A reader asks: First, I’m a big fan! I know polls are all but useless yardsticks, but I can’t help being somewhat nervous about the negative impact Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will have in the general election given his name recognition and statistically measurable support. Your thoughts?
Answer: Thanks! As voters get closer to the election, support for third-party and independent candidates drops precipitously. That should certainly be the case when the candidate is a crackpot vaccine denier. However, it will be a close election, and every vote that does not go to President Biden brings us closer to a second Trump term.
A reader asks: While I certainly agree with your description of Attorney General Merrick Garland as “slow — ponderous even,” doesn’t it seem he would have been more effective as a Supreme Court justice? Those on the bench are expected to be more thoughtful and thorough in deciding a complex question than someone leading a large department, more subject to impatience and political pressure.
Advertisement
Answer: Absolutely! His temperament, developed over years on the bench, is perfectly suited to the judiciary. He likely would have been a justice in the mold of Stephen G. Breyer, a methodical judge with an eye toward opinions’ real-world implications. That job differs dramatically from a prosecutor who needs to aggressively investigate and pursue cases and, in the case of the attorney general, drive policy.
A reader asks: The Alvin Bragg case against Trump is now happening April 15 and seemingly is the front-runner (of all the cases) to go to trial and possibly be completed before the election. What happens if he is convicted, loses appeal and perhaps even is given a prison sentence before the election? And if he wins the election, can he dismiss the case — and if not, would he still have to follow the sentencing outcome? Wishful thinking: How likely are the other cases against Trump to be decided and appealed before the election? Thank you!
Answer: No case is a slam dunk, but with powerful evidence, a conviction is likely. If convicted, however, Trump will not be incarcerated (if at all) before all appeals are exhausted. And that is unlikely to occur before the election. If his conviction stands and he is elected, we face a constitutional issue: Must a state “let him out” to serve as president? Most likely yes, but the remainder of any sentence would need to be served when (if!) he leaves office. No president can pardon someone convicted of a state crime. The Jan. 6, 2021, case might get started but probably will not reach a verdict before Election Day.
Advertisement
A reader asks: Can Judge Cannon order a directed verdict of acquittal in the documents case in the event Trump is convicted by a jury, and is there any recourse for special counsel Smith if she does?
Answer: If she judges that the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to convict, she can direct a verdict in the defendant’s favor. There is no appeal because any attempt to retry the defendant would constitute double jeopardy. This is one really good reason to seek her recusal.
Further thoughts
“The Nation is witnessing the determined delegitimization of both its Federal and State judiciaries and the systematic dismantling of its system of justice and Rule of Law by a single man — the former President of the United States,” retired judge J. Michael Luttig said on X concerning Trump’s threats and insults directed at the courts. “Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of the entire nation to protect its courts and judges, its Constitution, its Rule of Law, and America’s Democracy from vicious attack, threat, undermine, and deliberate delegitimization at the hands of anyone so determined.” In other words, judges must clamp down on unacceptable conduct, and it is the voters’ responsibility to not to hand him a get-out-of-jail-free card by electing him to office.
Journalism 101
Chris Quinn, editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote to his readers to explain why he will not treat Trump like other politicians:
Advertisement
The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw, but our eyes don’t deceive. (If leaders began a yearslong campaign today to convince us that the Baltimore bridge did not collapse Tuesday morning, would you ever believe them?) Trust your eyes. Trump on Jan. 6 launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.The facts involving Trump are crystal clear, and as news people, we cannot pretend otherwise, as unpopular as that might be with a segment of our readers. There aren’t two sides to facts. People who say the earth is flat don’t get space on our platforms. If that offends them, so be it.
Quinn warned, “Our nation does seem to be slipping down the same slide that Germany did in the 1930s. Maybe the collapse of government in the hands of a madman is inevitable, given how the media landscape has been corrupted by partisans, as it was in 1930s Germany.” He hopes that will not be the case but vows that his paper will “do our part.”
This should be so blindly obvious that every respectable outlet should subscribe to it. That they don’t — and instead reject it — tells us how badly major outlets have forgotten their essential mission.
Legal highlight
After bouncing up to the Supreme Court, the case challenging Texas’s Senate Bill 4 (trying to erect the state’s own immigration system) returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week. In a 2-1 decision, the judges kept in place an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. Judge Priscilla Richman, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority:
Advertisement
For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power. 64 Despite this fundamental axiom, S. B. 4 creates separate, distinct state criminal offenses and related procedures regarding unauthorized entry of noncitizens into Texas from outside the country and their removal …This [federal immigration] system is comprehensive, complex, and national in scope. It provides multiple procedural channels to determine whether a noncitizen should be removed and establishes a detailed process for reviewing those determinations. S. B. 4’s removal provision intrudes on this system by giving state judges and magistrate judges the power to order a noncitizen removed without an opportunity to avail himself of rights he has under federal law.
The forceful opinion underscores the degree to which MAGA Republicans now feel entitled to pursue antebellum-style nullification of federal power. Slyly referencing Republicans’ hypocrisy in rejecting a tough bipartisan border bill, she also wrote that “one root cause for the lack of action by the Executive could well be the failure of Congress to spend the funds necessary to address the massive increases in the numbers of noncitizens illegally entering the United States.” Touché.
Next week, I’ll have my online chat, so please submit your questions. Questions submitted after next Wednesday will go to my next mailbag newsletter.
Share Sign up
You’re reading Jennifer Rubin’s subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
This week, I answer some readers’ questions, sum up the threat to the rule of law and highlight an exquisite piece of journalism and an important court opinion.
A reader asks: Given that Michael Cohen was given jail time when found guilty of involvement in the so-called hush money case, do you believe that, if Donald Trump is found guilty, the judge will have any option other than to also impose a custodial sentence? Any thoughts on the repercussions of that occurring?
Answer: The crimes Trump is accused of are different, and he will have different mitigating and aggravating factors if convicted. One factor: If he takes the stand and lies, he will increase his chances of incarceration if convicted.
A reader asks: I’m frustrated with Trump’s trial judges invoking gag orders, threatening jail time and not following through despite Trump’s blatant disregard for the orders. Why won’t he be put in jail for his in-your-face, make-me tactics, clearly stepping over any guardrails put in place? Are the judges letting him push the boundaries without repercussions because there is a concern that Trump will have grounds for appeal, tanking the entire case if he wins?
Answer: Judges invariably give a warning and then impose fines before revoking bail. In the New York civil case, the judge did fine Trump, which largely shut him up for the rest of the trial. In the New York criminal case, the original gag order did not specifically include family members. Judge Juan M. Merchan has since expanded it to cover these people; going forward, Trump could be punished for attacking them. Trump certainly seems eager to bait judges to create an issue of “bias” for appeal. Though that likely won’t work, he uses this as a political tactic to pose as a martyr (My First Amendment rights are getting trampled!).
A reader asks: If U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismisses the Florida case, will the Justice Department file charges re: other papers or classified leaks? Many documents were not included in the current case, and Trump is accused of talking to Mark Meadows’s biographers and an Australian businessman about classified information though they didn’t have clearance. He was not in office and could not talk about or release classified information at will as he did during his presidency.
Answer: Before resorting to that (i.e., filing a case in New Jersey concerning the documents you mention), special counsel Jack Smith would appeal. Indeed, given her egregious rulings, it is very possible he will take up one of her rulings on appeal and ask for the circuit court to remove her.
A reader asks: First, I’m a big fan! I know polls are all but useless yardsticks, but I can’t help being somewhat nervous about the negative impact Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will have in the general election given his name recognition and statistically measurable support. Your thoughts?
Answer: Thanks! As voters get closer to the election, support for third-party and independent candidates drops precipitously. That should certainly be the case when the candidate is a crackpot vaccine denier. However, it will be a close election, and every vote that does not go to President Biden brings us closer to a second Trump term.
A reader asks: While I certainly agree with your description of Attorney General Merrick Garland as “slow — ponderous even,” doesn’t it seem he would have been more effective as a Supreme Court justice? Those on the bench are expected to be more thoughtful and thorough in deciding a complex question than someone leading a large department, more subject to impatience and political pressure.
Answer: Absolutely! His temperament, developed over years on the bench, is perfectly suited to the judiciary. He likely would have been a justice in the mold of Stephen G. Breyer, a methodical judge with an eye toward opinions’ real-world implications. That job differs dramatically from a prosecutor who needs to aggressively investigate and pursue cases and, in the case of the attorney general, drive policy.
A reader asks: The Alvin Bragg case against Trump is now happening April 15 and seemingly is the front-runner (of all the cases) to go to trial and possibly be completed before the election. What happens if he is convicted, loses appeal and perhaps even is given a prison sentence before the election? And if he wins the election, can he dismiss the case — and if not, would he still have to follow the sentencing outcome? Wishful thinking: How likely are the other cases against Trump to be decided and appealed before the election? Thank you!
Answer: No case is a slam dunk, but with powerful evidence, a conviction is likely. If convicted, however, Trump will not be incarcerated (if at all) before all appeals are exhausted. And that is unlikely to occur before the election. If his conviction stands and he is elected, we face a constitutional issue: Must a state “let him out” to serve as president? Most likely yes, but the remainder of any sentence would need to be served when (if!) he leaves office. No president can pardon someone convicted of a state crime. The Jan. 6, 2021, case might get started but probably will not reach a verdict before Election Day.
A reader asks: Can Judge Cannon order a directed verdict of acquittal in the documents case in the event Trump is convicted by a jury, and is there any recourse for special counsel Smith if she does?
Answer: If she judges that the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to convict, she can direct a verdict in the defendant’s favor. There is no appeal because any attempt to retry the defendant would constitute double jeopardy. This is one really good reason to seek her recusal.
“The Nation is witnessing the determined delegitimization of both its Federal and State judiciaries and the systematic dismantling of its system of justice and Rule of Law by a single man — the former President of the United States,” retired judge J. Michael Luttig said on X concerning Trump’s threats and insults directed at the courts. “Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of the entire nation to protect its courts and judges, its Constitution, its Rule of Law, and America’s Democracy from vicious attack, threat, undermine, and deliberate delegitimization at the hands of anyone so determined.” In other words, judges must clamp down on unacceptable conduct, and it is the voters’ responsibility to not to hand him a get-out-of-jail-free card by electing him to office.
Chris Quinn, editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote to his readers to explain why he will not treat Trump like other politicians:
Quinn warned, “Our nation does seem to be slipping down the same slide that Germany did in the 1930s. Maybe the collapse of government in the hands of a madman is inevitable, given how the media landscape has been corrupted by partisans, as it was in 1930s Germany.” He hopes that will not be the case but vows that his paper will “do our part.”
This should be so blindly obvious that every respectable outlet should subscribe to it. That they don’t — and instead reject it — tells us how badly major outlets have forgotten their essential mission.
After bouncing up to the Supreme Court, the case challenging Texas’s Senate Bill 4 (trying to erect the state’s own immigration system) returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week. In a 2-1 decision, the judges kept in place an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. Judge Priscilla Richman, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority:
The forceful opinion underscores the degree to which MAGA Republicans now feel entitled to pursue antebellum-style nullification of federal power. Slyly referencing Republicans’ hypocrisy in rejecting a tough bipartisan border bill, she also wrote that “one root cause for the lack of action by the Executive could well be the failure of Congress to spend the funds necessary to address the massive increases in the numbers of noncitizens illegally entering the United States.” Touché.
Next week, I’ll have my online chat, so please submit your questions. Questions submitted after next Wednesday will go to my next mailbag newsletter.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
