US Politics

Third Trump Indictment: What Is at Stake? (II)

(This is the second of a two-part series. Part I can be found here.)

Legal scholars, pundits, and millions of others will continue to debate these issues as this prosecution of Trump proceeds. Virtually every thinking observer, however, recognizes that the courts may not have the final say on any of them.

U.S. politics is wracked by polarization that only deepens with each new charge brought against Trump. This indictment is the third this year. A grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, is considering additional charges related to Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 election results in that state.


As World-Outlook explained in an article on one of the earlier indictments, “In previous periods of U.S. politics such overwhelming rejection of a leading political figure,” [by key liberal and conservative ruling-class spokespeople evident in the days after January 6] “would have led to that politician’s disappearance from the stage.

“Instead, the opposite has occurred. Not only did Trump remain on the political scene, he is still the single most powerful figure in the Republican Party. He has begun a new campaign for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination that rests on a base of many millions of loyal supporters.

Daniel Demoura, a Trump supporter from Boston, waves a “Trump 2024” flag outside the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., where the former U.S. president was arraigned on August 3. (Photo: Rebecca Wright / CNN)

“The problem for the ruling class,” that article continued, “is that tens of millions agree with Trump. CBS News reported June 11 [2023] that a poll conducted by the network and the marketing firm YouGov revealed that a whopping 76% of likely GOP primary voters believe the indictment of Trump is politically motivated.” This refers to an earlier indictment for Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. There are few signs that the latest indictment has eroded Trump’s support or is viewed any differently by his supporters.

“Trump’s 2024 Campaign Seeks to Make Voters the Ultimate Jury,” was the headline of a news analysis in the August 3 New York Times. “A federal jury will determine whether he is held accountable for his elaborate, drawn-out and unprecedented attempt to negate a vote of the American people and cling to power,” the article said.

“But it is tens of millions of voters who may deliver the ultimate verdict.”

David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker magazine, wrote an August 1 column headlined, “The New Trump Indictment and the Reckoning Ahead.” While expressing full-throated support for Trump’s prosecution, Remnick conceded, “What minds will it alter? What difference will it make?” He then added, “It still seems quite possible that Trump will be elected President for a second time.”

That outcome would render the indictment, and likely even a conviction, moot.

Trump’s demagogy

Nor do working people have an organization willing and able to explain how and why the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, serves the interests of the employers. Nor that the capitalist government — under a Democratic or Republican administration — cannot be relied upon to safeguard democratic rights.

A mass working-class party would explain why restrictions on democratic rights, including the right to speak freely, will inevitably be used against working people when we organize and mobilize to fight for our own rights and interests.

This is posed by the charges against Trump concerning “obstruction of an official proceeding.” Here the prosecutor seeks to hold Trump responsible for the disruption of Congress’ certification of the electoral vote on January 6. The issue has already arisen in court cases involving others charged for January 6 offenses, as World-Outlook reported:

“At the heart of the conflict,” an article on the website Politico explained, “is how to measure whether Jan. 6 rioters acted with ‘corrupt intent,’ a central element in the crime of obstructing an official proceeding. The judges noted that the requirement of ‘corrupt intent’ was meant to avoid inadvertently criminalizing traditional protest or lobbying activities that have been a feature of civic engagement throughout American history. Any decision on the meaning of corrupt intent would have to separate those legitimate activities from potential criminal conduct.

Pro-Trump mob storms the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. (Photo: Evelyn Hockstein / Washington Post)

“But Judge Florence Pan, who wrote the majority opinion,” Politico continued, “said it was the wrong time to decide that broad question because the three defendants whose cases were before the court were all also charged with assaulting police. There’s little question that those who assaulted police that day acted with ‘corrupt intent.’ But in Jan. 6 obstruction cases that don’t involve assault, determining ‘corrupt intent’ is much more complicated, she said.”

From Trump Indictment: What Are the Issues?

World-Outlook went on to explain, “The broad interpretation the Justice Department would like to give to ‘corrupt intent’ could easily be applied to others who may demonstrate at the Capitol while Congress is in session, but who do not break any laws — other than ‘obstruction’ as defined by prosecutors.”

The issue of ‘intent’

The issue of “intent” is key. Set Trump and this prosecution aside for a moment. When working people and the oppressed organize mass protests, putting the judgment of “intent” in the hands of prosecutors and the courts can certainly work to limit the rights of those seeking justice. During the outpouring of anger against police brutality and murder in 2020, some claimed the intent of protest organizers was violence and property damage.

A fighting labor movement will face the same threat. Walkouts and picket lines will aim to shut down production — the primary purpose of a strike. When company goons and cops seek to break those strikes, union organizers can — and will — be charged with the “intent” to cause any violence that results.

Labor history offers more than a few examples of working-class militants who have been framed up when violence occurs. Perhaps the most well-known case is the Haymarket defendants. In 1886, during a peaceful protest at Haymarket Square in Chicago advocating the 8-hour day, a bomb went off as cops began to disperse the crowd. After the blast and ensuing gunfire, seven police officers and at least four others died; dozens were wounded. Eight workers who held anarchist views were indicted on “conspiracy” charges. The “evidence” was that one of the defendants may have built the bomb, but none of those on trial had thrown it, and only two of the eight were at the Haymarket at the time!

This 1886 engraving was the most widely reproduced image of the Haymarket massacre. It shows Methodist pastor Samuel Fielden speaking, the bomb exploding, and the ensuing gunfire simultaneously; in reality, Fielden had finished speaking before the explosion.

Despite the weakness of the government’s case, seven defendants were sentenced to death and another to 15 years in prison. Four were hanged while one committed suicide. The remaining defendants were pardoned six years later.

Returning to the latest Trump indictment, the prosecution’s challenge in proving intent is a significant one. “Heart of the Trump Jan. 6 Indictment: What’s in Trump’s Head,” read an August 2 Washington Post article.

It cited Robert Kelner, “a veteran D.C. lawyer,” who said, “I think the entire indictment really turns on the question of Trump’s intent. Arguably, there isn’t any smoking-gun evidence in the indictment regarding intent, though there is certainly circumstantial evidence. At the heart of the case is really a metaphysical question of whether it’s even possible for Donald Trump to believe that he lost the election, or lost anything else, for that matter.”

“At trial,” the Post continued, Smith ‘needs to show that all of the false statements Trump made about the election, which the indictment chronicles in great detail, were understood by Trump to be false; otherwise, it becomes a case about political speech and First Amendment rights, and that’s not where the government wants to be,’ Kelner said.”

Again, we must consider the broader implications that go beyond this case. Legal precedents that give the government the authority to divine someone’s intentions will lead to restrictions on civil liberties and frame-ups of working-class fighters.

Definition of conspiracy

On August 10, New York Times columnist David French suggested some legal arguments for and against the indictment. He concluded in favor of the prosecution and offered at least one argument that should give any supporter of civil liberties serious pause:

“In 1910 the court wrote that the definition of a conspiracy to defraud the United States ‘is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.’”

That would include the Defense Department, among others. Antiwar activists — including antiwar GIs — could easily be targeted under such an interpretation. Clarence Darrow’s warnings about the use of conspiracy statutes should be taken to heart.

Some of Trump’s actions as president and his entire course of conduct in seeking to overturn the 2020 election posed serious threats to democratic rights. It was Trump himself who first sought to criminalize his differences with opponents by repeatedly encouraging chants of “Lock her up!” directed against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee who ran against him in 2016.

That danger, however, cannot be met by restrictions on political advocacy. A further sign of this danger was reported on August 9. Early in 2023, prosecutors for the special counsel “obtained a search warrant early this year for Mr. Trump’s long-dormant Twitter account as part of their inquiry into his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, according to court papers unsealed on Wednesday,” according to the New York Times.

The government went further. “The papers indicate that prosecutors got permission from the judge not to tell Mr. Trump for months that they had obtained the warrant for his account.”

What the government can do to Trump today can be done to others tomorrow. Restrictions on civil liberties will not defeat Trump. They will not defeat Trumpism. That requires a political challenge to the reactionary ideas and Bonapartist course of conduct it represents, not legal measures that Trump and others will not hesitate to adopt themselves against their own political opponents.

(This was the second of a two-part series. Part I can be found here.)

9 replies »

  1. Good articles. The whole history of the labor movement and of all the related struggles clearly demonstrates that capitalist governments’ attempts to oppose the right, including bonapartists like Trump or even fascists by restricting their democratic rights will be used with a vengeance against the democratic rights of socialists, labor unions, Black organizations, and so forth.

  2. So preoccupied with being . . . correct, if not right. I’m sure you think it’s endearing and “everybody” will be amazed at your erudition. It has makes you myopic. Sometimes keen analysis leaves you untrustworthy.

      • There is a bigger picture, the one where working people have no political vehicle and we are all almost literally forced to decide either to support the prosecution of Trump by any means necessary or inadvertently side with his democratic rights you free speech because the instrument holding him to account is also our enemy. It is indeed the lesser evil trying to defend democracy from the evil represented by Trump and the, still small, fascistic layer of the reactionary right wing of both the capitalist class and the layers of the working class politically supporting them. I do understand the need to educate and bring large layers of working people and the oppressed to greater self consciousness of the role we can play. But as I said sometimes being “right” isn’t something, especially working people, women, and oppressed racial/ethnic communities are in a place to hear; either politically or socially. No matter how well argued and incisive such an analysis, in this context it will only appear like an apology in support of Trump. I doubt most angry, mostly liberal, workers at the threat to democracy Trump represents will understand such a nuance, not because I think working people are dumb, but because their/our reality is so atomized that most only see the struggle in good v. evil terms. That is indeed the product of left evilism itself. I think it is a mistake to engage in this issue as a “debate” over the general aims of the liberal wing of the capitalist class versus those of their right wing counterparts for the purpose of steering some more viable working class political path. We seem more like sideline critics at best and apologists seeking to get an ear with right wing workers at worst. I’m my view, such an approach makes us seem less trustworthy in the eyes of liberal workers who still only see that a criminal, one that they see as a clear and present danger to what they believe is democracy, has a point about political advocacy that should be defended. Neither World Outlook nor revolutionaries in general should be trying to provide some “supreme court” judgement about whether the people trying to prosecute and punish this criminal, and actual threat to democracy, are doing it with our interests in mind. Neither the lawyers nor the Democrats are doing this in our interests at all. But in the context we find ourselves today, it is by far the only instrument currently available when the working class is so politically weak. I share your view that there is indeed a better more viable way out, a politically strong, more directly conscious working class united in common struggle against sexism, racism, xenophobia, and capitalist rule. And, I do understand what appears as your intent to try and educate working people about the differences between their (capitalist rulers) interests and ours (working people, women, and the oppressed). I believe it is short sighted to focus on the nuances in this issue and but the more dire need to ensure this criminal misogynist racist hater of democracy is crushed along with the current he represents inside the working class.
        I appreciate your efforts and always look forward to reading your thoughts. I just believe we need to stop the tendency to sectarianism in speaking to the “small ears” for the sake of thinking how to win over the larger ones. If, and when, working people become more politically conscious enough to mobilize in our interests, I think they will hear “us” better if they know we were willing to come with them in their development than appear to be sniping at them when they are wrong. To be sure, I do not claim to know how to do that well by myself. I don’t counterpose my view against yours. Rather, I believe we need to do more than just be correct for the sake of doing right. In the time and space we have.
        In solidarity always

  3. Apologies for the typos and other writing mistakes born of autocorrect. If I can edit these remarks, I will. I hope my meaning is clear enough.

    • Mtomas3 no worries about the typos. Unfortunately your meaning is not clear to us. We would appreciate it if you would explain what parts of the article make us “myopic” or “untrustworthy.”

  4. You are making some arguments that Trump lawyers will no doubt make, and the judge and jury will decide whether proving his intent was done or whether it was even necessary legally. The evidence will be presented, and none of us should presume there won’t be more to come that we have not heard about. If the case is “railroaded”, or there is a “kangaroo court”. pr Triump is treated unfairly by a judge or prosecutor, that should be opposed. The one charge you mention you picked a bone with – but what of all of the other charges ?

  5. I agree with this article in general. However, at least one of the charges is based on actual illegal actions, not just him exercising his free-speech rights.

    The taped phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger proves he asked that 11,779 votes be found for Trump. Trump was trying to overturn the will of the majority of Georgia voters.

    There has been a lot written about this, so I found the call transcript and read it. This was a long phone call more of than an hour and two minutes. This was not aspirational, or a speech, claiming he won. Trump says over and over again that he is not interested in court cases or further investigations, he just wants the Georgia Secretary of State to find enough votes for him to win.

    Thinking about what working class leaders should do over the next year or so I think the situation is unusual and complex. On the one hand, we don’t have a party that represents our interests, and our union and other organizations are weak.

    There are some bright spots like the organizing happening at Amazon, Starbucks, and other places. There seems to be stirrings among railroad workers and auto workers, and we have seen recent strikes as an indication of that. National Nurses United is consistently organizing more hospitals.

    These efforts need more time to make mistakes, learn, and mature. My opinion is Trump has a real chance of winning in 2024, and that has grave implications.

    I had a personal experience last year that I want to briefly share. Extremists made a concerted effort in the 2022 elections to elect majorities of school district boards, so that they could attack public education, weaken teacher unions, and implement a whole list of proposals, such as curriculum changes, book bans, and attacks on LGBTQ+ students and staff.

    Where I live, the extremists put forward a slate of three candidates that were amazingly well funded and organized for a relatively small school district.

    The local teachers union voted to endorse a competing slate of three candidates. These candidates were Democrats with imperfect programs, but were at least open to considering reasonable positions on the issues.

    At the time I was the president of the local, retired teachers chapter. My conclusion was it was critical to support the union endorsed slate because there wasn’t time to do anything else.

    The extremists had professional election organizers and out spent the union slate 5 to 1. Our side out worked them sending handwritten postcards, going door-to-door and systematically organizing to talk to friends. The result was two of the three union candidates were elected, maintaining a bare majority of 3 to 2 on the school board.

    Since the election, the extremists have made a concerted effort to force teachers and staff to immediately report to parents, if a student wants to keep private an LGBTQ+ issue. For transgender students this is the life and death issue.

    So far, the extremist have only been able to have their two votes so I think I made the correct decision in helping the union slate to win.

    I know my comments are not clearly thought out. I hope to participate in a discussion.

Leave a Reply