Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Weaponization

Trump is trying to fire Lisa Cook. Ironies and questions abound. And chutzpah.

Lisa Cook was confirmed by the Senate as a Governor of the Federal Reserve in 2022. The Fed is supposed to be independent of the President, and Governors can only be removed “for cause.” The provision does not define “cause” or who determines it or how.

Trump’s claimed cause? According to allegations from the Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, Cook committed mortgage fraud by claiming two different homes as her primary residence in 2021. Trump claims these allegations as the cause for firing. Questions abound. Can allegations be “cause”? Even if true, does this constitute cause if it is unrelated to Cook’s performance on the Fed? Is it cause, even if true, if the conduct occurred before her confirmation and was not considered disqualifying by the Senate? Many Senators surely were looking for reasons to prevent her from getting the position. Her confirmation vote was at first deadlocked at 50-50 with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaking vote.

Some of the ironies. Or chutzpah. Trump claims the allegations by themselves constitute cause. This is from a man who has been convicted of fraud for falsifying business records to hide payments made to Stormy Daniels. She got hush money payments to keep her tryst with Trump out of the news during his first campaign. Moreover, Trump was found to have committed something closely akin to mortgage fraud in a separate civil suit. He set high values on properties when seeking loans and lower values on the same properties for tax purposes. These adjudications, not mere allegations, have not disqualified him from the presidency.

A different irony: Many Trumpistas labeled these New York legal actions as dangerous political persecutions. For example, a conservative pundit on a “news” channel said that it is dangerous when prosecutors target individuals, and New York prosecutors had campaigned on the promise to “get” Donald Trump. They had a point, but they are notably quiet about targeting now. Cook, of course, is being targeted by federal officials. Their concern is not mortgage fraud. Instead, Trump wants to control the Fed. In other settings–the Labor Statistics Bureau comes to mind–Trump has simply fired those who promulgate data that he dislikes. If he were able to fire Cook as easily, he would, but with the Fed he must find “cause,” but any cause will do.

There are several ways in which prosecutions occur. Most take place because a crime is committed, and law enforcement sets out to find the bad guys. If the purported criminals are caught, they are prosecuted. A convenience store is robbed; a person is murdered; or someone is assaulted. If there is an arrest, a prosecution follows.

What might be called investigatory prosecutions are different. The authorities have reasons to believe that a person has committed a crime which is not publicly evident—stock fraud or loan sharking, for example. The authorities investigate to see if indeed the crime was committed and to collect evidence for the prosecution of the stock fraud or loan sharking.

Targeted prosecutions are different. In a small number of instances, authorities determine that a person is “bad.” They investigate to find a crime that he has committed and prosecute him for that even though the crimes are not the ones the authorities were truly concerned about. In this setting a crime is not targeted; a person is. This happened to Al Capone a century ago. Prosecutors knew that Capone was a bootlegger who used unprecedented violence to protect and extend his operations. However, apparently because witnesses could not be found to testify to these activities, they could not prosecute him for those crimes. Instead, after an extensive investigation, Capone was prosecuted for income tax offenses. Prosecutors convinced a jury that Capone lived well beyond the means possible on the income he reported. Therefore, he must not be paying all the tax he owed. Thus, Capone went to prison not for murder or other violent crimes, but for income tax evasion.

Trump and his supporters claimed that legal actions in New York had targeted Trump. That seems to have been true. New York prosecutors, who are elected, had made campaign pledges to “get” Trump. The Trumpistas maintained that such targeting is dangerous. Is it? Trump in fact committed the illegal actions he was charged with, or so the adjudications showed. How, then, can the commentator claim that targeting an individual is dangerous?

A certain kind of moralist may simply say, “If he did the deed, punish indeed… let him bleed.” But let’s combine some theology with the law. If you are of the Original Sin disposition, we all do things that are wrong. And even if you don’t subscribe to Genesis, you might know that we have many, many laws with blurry boundaries. (Almost) all of us have committed illegal acts, but stealing a pencil from work, overstating a charitable deduction, or slapping an acquaintance is almost never prosecuted. Our justice system would be overwhelmed if it had to handle every violation of the law. However, if the authorities want to “get” someone, and they have enough resources to investigate that person thoroughly, they will almost always be able to bring some sort of criminal or civil prosecution. And, yes, that is a scary power.

The Trumpistas, however, no longer proclaim prosecutorial targeting as dangerous because they would then have to denounce Trump’s actions. Lisa Cook’s criminal referral is not an attempt to enforce mortgage fraud. It is an attempt to find a reason, any reason, to remove her as a Fed governor. The problem is not that she is a criminal. Her problem is that she has not bent to Trump’s will. Letitia James, NY State’s Attorney General, and Senator Adam Schiff are being investigated for mortgage fraud not as a deterrent for loan shenanigans, but because they have opposed Trump. This is clear when news reports tell us that right-wing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has listed three homes as primary residences. Yet he is not being investigated for mortgage fraud.

Prosecutors targeted Capone for his horrendous crimes. Trump and his supporters are now targeting people not for crimes they may have committed, but simply because they don’t kowtow to Trump and his demands.

And yes, that is scary.

Posted on by rjonakait

Targeting Trump

Targeting Trump

A conservative pundit on a “news” channel said that it is dangerous when prosecutors target individuals, and New York prosecutors had campaigned on the promise to “get” Donald Trump. He had a point.

Criminal investigations and prosecutions can be broken down into two broad categories. In the first, a crime is committed, and miscreants are sought. If purported criminals are caught, they are prosecuted. This is the pattern followed in the overwhelming number of prosecutions in this country. A convenience store is robbed; a person is murdered; or an illegal drug is sold, and an arrest and prosecution follow.

In other prosecutions, authorities determine that a person is “bad.” They investigate to find a crime that he has committed and prosecute him for that. A crime is not targeted; a person is. This happened to Al Capone a century ago. Prosecutors knew that Capone was a bootlegger who used unprecedented violence to protect and extend his operations. However, apparently because witnesses could not be found to testify to these activities, he was not prosecuted for those crimes. Instead, prosecutors convinced a jury that Capone lived well beyond the means possible on the income he reported on his tax form. Therefore, he must not be paying all the tax he owed. Thus, Capone went to prison for income tax evasion.

Similarly, there is now the recent complaint that Trump had been targeted. When it comes to New York State, that might be true. New York prosecutors, who are elected, seemed to make campaign pledges to get Trump. The commentator, however, said that such targeting is dangerous. Is it? The action by the New York Attorney General (this was a civil, not a criminal action but the same targeting issues apply) revealed that Trump and his organization monkeyed the books over many years’ time to benefit Trump. In other words, Trump, in fact, did what the Attorney General claimed. He was not manipulated into the equivalent of a false conviction.

In New York City, the Manhattan District Attorney has brought a criminal case against Trump. We don’t know what the result of this case will be, but if Trump is convicted, it will have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the illegal deeds (in this case, a form of money-laundering). He will not have been railroaded into a conviction for a crime he did not commit. How, then, can the commentator claim that targeting an individual is dangerous?

A certain kind of moralist may simply say, “If he did the deed, punish indeed . . . let him bleed.” But let’s combine some theology with the law. If you are of the Original Sin disposition, we all do things that are wrong. And even if you don’t buy into Genesis, you might know that we have many, many laws on the books with blurry boundaries. (Almost) all of us have committed illegal acts, but stealing a pencil from work, overstating a charitable deduction, or slapping an acquaintance is almost never prosecuted. Our justice system could not handle every violation of the law. However, if the authorities want to “get” someone, and they have enough resources to investigate that person thoroughly, they will almost always be able to bring some sort of criminal or civil prosecution. And, yes, that is a scary power.

So, I have sympathy for the conservative’s concern that Trump has been targeted in New York, but I do not know all that went into the decisions to bring the New York litigations. On the other hand, the Georgia, January 6, and classified documents prosecutions are not the targeted kind. Deeds were done and investigations leading to prosecutions followed. The conservative commentator did not make that distinction but should have.