Let’s not call it a “constitutional crisis,” or at least not yet. A fourth criminal indictment popped late yesterday against former President Trump. He now has the most of any former President in our history. The former President was accused of conducting a multi-layered, multi-level conspiracy to steal the Electoral College vote of the Electors from the State of Georgia.

We confess to being a little worn out by the one-two punch of last week, since the third indictment in New York was still in the news cycle. There had been two on the street already. CNN called it a “grave political crisis,” and attributed the new tradition of indictments to Trump’s ‘aberrant presidency.’

This state case brings the total criminal charges against Mr. Trump to 91, arrayed against an assortment of prosecutors and legal sharks in four separate court systems. The one dropped yesterday includes 41 counts of conspiracy to “pressure local officials,” “issue false statements,” “harass election workers,” and “connive with former Vice President Mike Pence” to determine which electoral votes to count.

We remember how the last of those played out on the internet version of the plot. It was widely circulated before the strange 6Jan insurrection, or whatever happened on The Hill that day. It is interesting to see that case inverted and resurrected to become part of the next chapter in the Orange Man Bad saga. It has been quite a read and quite a ride!

We think we have a general understanding of the four specific legal actions. The first was a non-disclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels. All of us have signed those things, but have not been prosecuted (yet). The second case was that strange document search down at Mr. Trump’s Florida home. At the time the documents were stored there, Mr. Trump had the power to declassify anything he wished.

Which brings us to one of those new words used to describe our politics. The Merriam & Webster folks have been pretty good about keeping up with the constantly-shifting forensic landscape. They call this cycle “whataboutism.” The dictionary definition of that term- at least in their dictionary- is “the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar. Or worse.

What is troubling about that process is the rhetorical strategy when officials implicated in wrongdoing whip out a counter-example of a similar abuse from the accusing party. With this technique in political discussion, the legitimacy of criticism itself is now the subject of debate. That includes matters of speech formerly protected by the First Amendment.

We handled classified documents without complaint or error for several decades. There are rules that must be followed. They are not that complicated. Tiresome, maybe, but not an insurmountable burden. The document adventure is tantalizing with possibility, with all those coversheets piled up on the rug in cheerful disarray. That is part of the bewilderment to all this, since the parallel legal circus involving a Chief Executive involves classified documents acquired prior to the Presidency and stored in a really cool vintage Corvette.

Even if convicted of only one or two or the hundred charges levied against him, due to the former President’s age, they would amount to life sentences. The legal pandemonium has grown so sprawling that only the most obsessive political junkies can claim to have a day-by-day accounting of it all, particularly since the

Plus, for each spectacular accusation against one of the front-running candidates is balanced by something spectacular against the other. This has now been going on for what- nearly seven years? We understood there was some skullduggery very early on in this process, so you can understand our electoral fatigue.

The first two legal events levied against the Orange Man are personal in nature. The second batch of two- three and four, in sequential order- have serious criminal penalties if they are proven. That is part of the storm of controversy about them, since some claim there are enormous implications for the future of all future American elections.

Like, will bringing charges against the opposition leader now be standard procedure for all future changes of power? Will anyone accept anything? We are inclined to go back to peaceful changes of nearly unlimited authority, but what about…

Copyright 2023 Vic Socotra

www.vicsocotra.com