Statue of Liberty weeps as Trump’s trials roll on
Lawrence Donegan reveals how the Trump court cases are affecting US election campaign trail
THE curtain fell on a wild week for defendant Donald Trump with yesterday’s cross-examination in
New York of David Pecker, the former owner of the American supermarket tabloid National Enquirer and first prosecution witness in the criminal case against the 45th President of the United States.
Mr Pecker, a dapper, softly-spoken man who once wielded his media power with the subtlety of Thor’s axe, laid out in the Manhattan Criminal Court how he, Mr Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and Mr
Trump conceived and operated a “catch-and-kill” scheme in 2015 aimed at keeping damaging stories about the then aspiring politician – alleged affairs with porn stars and Playboy models, supposedly secret abortions – under wraps, lest it ruin Mr Trump’s nascent campaign for the presidency.
“I wanted to protect my company, I wanted to protect myself and I wanted, also, to protect Donald Trump,’’ Mr Pecker told the jury.
Taken in the abstract this is a revelation for the ages – a head-spinning, world-changing, solid-gold media sensation that once upon a time would have flattened a mountain never mind a political career. Not any more. The rules have changed and under the new rules Mr Pecker’s appearance in the witness box was merely the warm-up act for the headliner – Sabrina Carpenter to Taylor Swift, if you like.
The Taylor Swift in this analogy is a Trump lawyer (he has an army of them) called Jack Sauer, who popped up in the US Supreme Court down the road in Washington DC to present the case that American presidents should have absolute immunity for any crimes they may have committed while in office – a notion so legally ridiculous not even Richard Nixon’s lawyers dared to go there. But then, as recent history tells us, when it comes to taking a chainsaw to centuries of American jurisprudence, Tricky Dicky is no Donald Trump.
To his credit Mr Sauer, whose sandpaper voice is a perfect match for his solid brass neck, kept a straight face while dressing his argument in a coat of constitutional plausibility. He droned on for an hour before Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberal judges in a court of nine, grew tired of him and cut to the chase. “So if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” she asked.
Game, set and match. Right? Wrong. Mr Sauer didn’t flinch. “I think it would depend on the circumstances,” he said.
So there we have it. Mr Trump’s famous assessment of the hold he has over his supporters – “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” – now stands in the historical record as a legal argument made to the Supreme Court. If the response of the conservative majority during the hearing is anything to go by, it is to be taken seriously.
Justice Kagan, Sotomayer’s colleague on Team Liberal, gamely tried again. “How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?”
“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Mr Sauer said.
Back in New York Harbour the Statue of Liberty laid down her torch and put her head in her hands.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on Mr Trump’s claim of absolute immunity by June and all indications are that while the majority are expected to come down against him, albeit in a way that will enable him to avoid a trial on criminal charges he faces relating to his efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election. If that happens, the Statue of Liberty might as well buy a one-way ticket on the boat back to France.