My View: Pundits Run the Risk of Over-Analyzing the First Card of the Hand

Pool photo by Andrew Kelly

By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor

There is a tendency in sports for analysts and sports writers to over analyze the opening game of a season or a series.  It’s understandable in a way—we only have limited data and humans are challenged when they attempt to predict or extrapolate into the future.

This is even the more the case with the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump.  Pundits have stressed this is a weak case.  Some have speculated that this will help him—at least in the primary, though many kind of acknowledge that the middle of the voters by now may well be tired of the non-stop drama.

Partisans have overreacted as well.  Republicans have fallen over themselves to defend him—even some of his potential rivals.

One problem—a lot of these takes are snapshots of a picture that could dramatically change in the next eight months.  After all, this is the first of what could be several indictments and, yes, I think there are a lot more serious charges waiting to drop.

One reason that Trump could benefit from this is that the even Republicans that are mostly tired of his antics have nevertheless offered defense.

Some have charged that this is a banana republic tactic.  I believe they may come to regret that analogy.

First of all, it’s silly.  Trump was charged with a crime, kept out of custody, and will have the full force of due process of law.

Compare that to what we normally think of as a banana republic; there is Chile where the military (some think supported by the CIA) surrounded the presidential palace and ultimately Allende committed suicide rather than be captured.

In Guatemala it was a US backed coup on behalf of United Fruit, that led to the ouster of Jacobo Arbenz who was forced to resign and fled to the Mexican embassy.

There are countless examples—usually it is a military coup that leads to a resignation and either a summary execution or exile.

But what is particularly striking about the charge of banana republic is that it could be used to describe the amateur tactics by which Trump attempted to hold onto power following defeat in November 2020—there was his false claim of electoral fraud, his attempt to persuade election officials and Congress to overturn the results, and the culmination was the January 6 insurrection.

Senator Lindsey Graham was in tears, urging Trump allies to “give him money so he can fight.”

Then there is Governor DeSantis, a would-be opponent for the nomination, who vowed that Florida wouldn’t cooperate with an extradition—while this never came into play, this would have been a massive violation of the law.

Then there were efforts by the Republicans to subpoena documents from an ongoing criminal investigation from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg—an action many called an attempt to intimidate and interfere with the investigation.

As more gun violence has erupted and protests in Tennessee, irresponsible commentators like Tucker Carlson proclaimed on Fox it’s “probably not the best time to give up your AR-15.”

Pundits have also scoffed at the charges—even as they were apparently unaware of how the case would be charged.  A NY Times analysis had to acknowledge “a surprise accusation bolsters a risky case…”

While I agree with probably everyone that this case is not the crime of the century—“falsifying records in part to lay the groundwork for planned lies to tax authorities,” paying hush money to a porn star to conceal an affair that could have exploded during the 2016 campaign, and, moreover, working to cover it up in various ways is not nothing.

The thing that just about everyone has lost sight of is that this is just the first step.  How many other prosecutions are going to come down?

Pundits argue that this is not “the right case” to lead with.  There are much more serious cases out there.

But let’s look at this.  I saw one pundit make a good point here.  There is a “collective pattern of behavior on the part of Donald Trump” and perhaps more importantly we see an escalation and progression.

Interestingly enough, this was first.

So you have the hush money with the faking of business records, tax violations and campaign finance issues—this is what you might describe as low-level offenses where Trump was at most bending the rules to avoid having another scandal harm his campaign.  Remember the context here was this was concurrent with the Access Hollywood revelations.

The next shoe was the attempt to pressure Ukrainian officials to help his reelection campaign.  This is what led to the first impeachment—an attempt to use official government power to bolster reelection chances.

Then, after he seems to lose the election in November, he attempts to concoct the whole election fraud story.

This escalates to the point where you have the conversation with Georgia election officials, attempting to reverse the election.

And finally you have January 6 where there is an effort—fleeting and inadequate as it may be—to hold onto power by force.

To me this seems to be not only a pattern of behavior but one that escalates over time.  The first instance is relatively minor but it escalates—I think the Georgia case and the Insurrection and what we learned from the hearings are far more serious charges.

I think the pundits are right that this may help him in the primary, particularly if his would-be opponents are afraid to criticize him—but what happens if the Georgia case and the January 6 insurrection along with potential obstruction charges post-presidency at Mar-a-Lago get prosecuted?

The Republican partisans would love nothing better than Trump 2.0 but most of the rest of the country would like to move on.

Categories:

Tags: