Donald Trump is now a convicted felon; what should you, a voter, think about this? Well, it depends on your reading of the case. If you believe the court convicted Trump based on just laws he broke, this verdict should count as a strong reason against voting for him. But if you think the court unjustly convicted Trump—maybe there was insufficient evidence he broke just laws, or perhaps he did break the laws in question, but the law or its legal consequences are unjust—things are different. Concerning your decision to vote, the decision should either count as moot or, more likely, all the more reason to vote for Trump. (We have to drain the swamp somehow!)
Call the reading where the court justly convicted Trump the NYT Reading. On the NYT Reading, you are confident that Trump clearly broke the law and was justly prosecuted for doing so. You say, in unison with the New York Times Editorial Board, “Donald Trump, Felon[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]” You celebrate this case because it demonstrates that nobody, not even a former president who is currently the GOP nominee, is above the law. There was nothing objectionable about the court process; it was, instead, “a remarkable display of the democratic principles that Americans prize at work.” When you saw the guilty verdict on MSNBC, you heard Mike Breen go “BANG!!!!!” I don’t have any empirical evidence to support this, but my guess is that a great deal of American voters—maybe 40%? Does that sound right?—see this case under the NYT reading.
Then, call the reading where Trump was unjustly convicted the Daily Wire reading. Here, you are confident that the conviction was a case where a group of ambitious political actors were trying to destroy Trump’s election chances by haphazardly putting together a case with ridiculous legal justifications that swayed a New York jury that was clearly biased against him from the beginning of the case. When you heard the news that Trump was convicted, you lamented that we are living under a Banana Republic and immediately tuned in to Ben Shapiro’s live stream where he decries the case as an unprecedented miscarriage of justice. You do not see this as a win for democracy, a case where nobody is above the law; instead, you see this as a case where political opponents use the law to silence opposition.
Of course, the NYT and Daily Wire readings of this case are not exhaustive; we have the rest of the voters who have no idea what is going on—call this the Confused reading. These people either don’t care about the verdict or, if they do care, they have tried to read up on it and have no clue what to believe about it. I think I am squarely in the Confused camp, and for good reason. None of this makes any sense, yet political commentators read the case under the NYT and Daily Wire lenses with unshakeable confidence. They then try to explain to me why I should be similarly confident about their readings of the case. An NYT reading-advocate might say,
David French: “In the 2016 election, Trump paid off two women so they would not tell the public about how he had affairs with them.”
Me, a Hobbit: “Oh, that’s bad. But wait, how is this illegal?”
French: “Well, in a vacuum, hush money payments are not illegal. However, the way Trump made out the payments was illegal.”
Me: “Oh? Say more!”
French: “Trump characterized the payments as legal fees in his company’s books, which is illegal. But the statute of limitations has passed on this case, so the court can’t prosecute it unless they can prove Trump did this to cover up another crime, which would then make it a felony that the statute of limitations doesn’t protect.”
Me: “This is all very confusing. What would the other crime be?”
French: “So, the way Trump made out this payment was indirectly through his lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen paid off one of the women for $130k, and Trump later reimbursed Cohen for doing that. The way the court thinks this is illegal is that such a donation counts as a contribution to the Trump campaign, and the legal limit for contributions like this is $2.7k.”
Me: “But I don’t understand. How is Cohen making a contribution to the Trump campaign when he paid the woman, not Trump?”
And so on.
The point is that this seems like a highly complex case, yet both the NYT and Daily Wire readings of the case put it before you, a voter, as not all that complicated. Either the case represents a victory for democracy or the downfall of democracy, two completely different interpretations of the same facts on the ground. And then, in November, you are supposed to go into the ballot and vote for someone who is either a lawless felon or an innocent person whose political opponents are trying to come after them with the rule of law. Good luck!
Not only this, but many people—pastors, political leaders, celebrities, friends, and relatives—will tell you that you have a moral obligation to vote in this election. After all, if you don’t vote, you can’t complain. You’re a citizen of this republic, and because you enjoy its benefits, you should do your part and vote. There is an evil force that is trying to take over the country—whether it’s Marxist critical race theory or MAGA-esque white nationalism(?)—and you’ve got a moral obligation to stop it in the ballot. Do you mean to tell me you would not go to the ballot and vote against a clearly convicted felon from running our country? Or go and vote against a candidate who is trying to squash his political opposition by trumping up phony charges so he can take over the country? Nightmare, nightmare, nightmare!
Here is another way. If you don’t understand the facts of the case—which, I imagine, most people don’t—then you should not count the verdict as a reason for or against voting for Trump. You should probably not vote for justly convicted felons to become the president, and you should probably not vote for someone who trumps up charges against their opponents to win elections. The trouble, of course, is that you do not know which description fits the case. So, don’t vote, even if overconfident people pressure you to do so.
Hey Nick, I didn’t realize I subscribe to your writings, but I’m glad I do. As a former AP US History & Government teacher it’s hard for me not to love a debate. Hopefully I can help you think through your existential dilemma, for I don’t think you are at all alone. What happened in the Manhattan courthouse to Trump didn’t happen in a vacuum. It has been an obsession with the ideological left in this country for some time now to destroy their opposition by any means necessary. I mean if Trump really is more evil than “Hitler” wouldn’t it be justified to use extraordinary means to stop him? But the issue really isn’t about the former President. He just happens to be the biggest “orange man”with mean tweets in the way. Whether it be the systematic targeting of conservatives by the IRS, suppression of legitimate information by big tech under the guise of “misinformation,” (See Hunter Biden’s infamous lap top as an example), or now this latest tactic of the weaponization of the Biden justice system through “lawfare,” it’s uncharted territory we as a country have been forced to enter. No one really knows how this Pandora’s box of lawfare will turn out. If as a citizen in a free democratic republic one is not cognitively able to do one’s own independent research, think for yourself, or draw your own conclusions, then I’d concur with your sentiment that perhaps that individual shouldn’t cast an uniformed vote. However, as an intelligent young man, no matter how confusing this all may seem, truth is still worth pursuing! Don’t throw in the towel yet. Our votes are not intended to be taken lightly. And collectively they affect more than just the individual. Therefore, it’s worth the extra effort to not give up the quest for understanding. Now is the time to pay more attention, not less, while we still have a say in how we are to be governed. Someone will be elected President of the US in November, whether we choose to participate or not. I think it’s a fair assessment that whoever that person turns out to be, we will be stuck with them for 4 more years, warts and all. 😉
Krystal says this is her favorite post of yours thus far. I say you are my muse, my vice, my thorn in my side.