Politics
Column: Does freedom itself depend on the outcome of this election? Donald Trump's probably does
Donald Trump is at a pivotal point in his personal history. For him, the upshot of the election will be either a series of criminal prosecutions likely to result in incarceration or a few legal nuisances that he can largely or completely dismiss.
A victory for Kamala Harris next week would leave Trump with no new cards to play against the juggernaut of criminal cases already pending against him. We could expect turnover at the highest ranks of the Department of Justice, up to and including Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland. But the new leadership would be nearly certain to retain special counsel Jack Smith, who has earned high marks for his aggressive pursuit of Trump’s alleged federal crimes.
That would allow Smith to continue to pursue the two prosecutions he has brought against the former president: one for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election, culminating with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol; the other for purloining government documents and obstructing the authorities’ efforts to recover them from his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago.
As a matter of sheer legal merit, the latter is the strongest of all the criminal cases against Trump. The evidence is overwhelming that Trump absconded with documents he had no right to possess as an ex-president and then engaged in a nearly two-year stonewalling of the federal government’s entirely legitimate efforts to get them back. His alleged obstruction included lying about the extent of his compliance with a federal subpoena and ordering his co-conspirators to hide documents that he knew the government wanted. And for all we know, his sloppy, selfish handling of sensitive information about national security may have put U.S. assets at grave risk.
What makes the case especially powerful is that anyone who engaged in similar conduct would undoubtedly face serious charges; indeed, the Justice Department routinely prosecutes people for mishandling a small fraction of the material Trump misappropriated. So no one can legitimately argue that he was singled out for political purposes or that the case pushes the legal envelope in any way.
Trump has nevertheless managed to elude justice in the case because of a series of partisan rulings by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who ultimately went so far as to order the case dismissed on the ground that Smith’s appointment lacked proper congressional authority. That ruling is now before the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which is likely to reverse it and could order Cannon’s recusal. And while a determined district court judge can find many ways to make charges disappear, Cannon would face even more scrutiny and have less recourse if her patron loses his bid to return to the White House.
The case, in short, should proceed to a conviction. And the likely sentence under federal guidelines (which the courts may depart from) looks to be almost 20 years.
If the documents case is the most open and shut against Trump, the Jan. 6 case is the most important in that it goes to the core of his iniquity as president. But Trump got another big lucky break here, not from the district court — Tanya Chutkan is a no-nonsense federal judge who has moved the case briskly — but from the U.S. Supreme Court. The conservative justices threw a monkey wrench into the case with their opinion granting broad presidential immunity from prosecution, working through the implications of which will take at least another year.
Still, when the dust settles, the evidence is more than strong enough to lead to conviction on the core charges that are likely to remain. And judging by the sentences imposed on the most culpable of the Jan. 6 ground soldiers, Trump would be looking at years in prison in this case too.
That leaves the two state cases against the former president. In New York, Trump is to be sentenced in less than a month for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels. And in Georgia, a racketeering case stemming from the Jan. 6 plot is in a sort of deep freeze as the state courts try to sort out whether Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis and her office need to be recused for ethical reasons.
The future of the Georgia case is uncertain in any scenario. But if Trump loses the election, he will face sentencing in Manhattan. He is likely to serve little if any time in custody as a result, but he can probably count on a long term of probation, which itself entails a significant deprivation of liberty.
Finally, the possibility remains that Trump will surface as a defendant in other state cases involving conspiracies to overturn the election by appointing false electors. His involvement in those schemes is a matter of record.
Add all that together, and the bottom line is that Trump will be forced to endure one criminal trial after another and the possibility of prison sentences interrupted only for proceedings in other cases.
But what if Trump emerges as the victor next week? The difference for him alone would be astonishing. Regaining the White House would amount to a free pass for a presidency and post-presidency that have been nothing short of a crime spree.
First and foremost, as head of the executive branch, Trump could and would simply order the Department of Justice to drop the two ongoing federal cases. Indeed, Trump announced last week that he would fire the special counsel “within two seconds” of taking office and pointed to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision as ensuring his power to do so. That would bring all of Smith’s work to a grinding and permanent halt.
As for New York, even as president, Trump would have no official authority to order Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg to stand down. But he would probably argue in federal court that a state can’t pursue a criminal case against — much less incarcerate — a sitting president. And it’s likely that the Supreme Court would and should find such a principle implicit in the Constitution: The federal government could hardly function if the states had that power.
In that case, any sentence in New York, including a probationary one, would be served only after Trump is out of office, at which point this may be a very different country. For starters, Trump has signaled his intent to bring federal charges against Bragg.
Finally, a Trump presidency probably forecloses any possibility of his being included in any additional state prosecutions. Indeed, it might spell the end of those prosecutions altogether.
Trump’s entire campaign to regain the presidency can be seen as an outlandish gamble on evading accountability for a series of grave and manifest crimes. Should he win, he will take it as a popular verdict that he is above the law, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution. And as a practical matter, he will be right.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
News5 minutes agoTrump, Netanyahu at odds / Elusive Iran deal : Sources & Methods
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
