X Close

What we know about Donald Trump’s obscure legal charges

Is it bad news for the Donald? Credit: Getty

August 2, 2023 - 8:00am

Donald Trump has been served with another wave of indictments, deepening the legal maelstrom surrounding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The charges, filed by special counsel Jack Smith, accuse the former president of three conspiracy felonies and a felony count of obstructing an official proceeding. 

These new charges add to the long list already arrayed against Trump in the ongoing federal case concerning the alleged mismanagement of classified documents following his presidency. The federal indictment count there now stands at 40, bolstered by 37 initial charges, including 31 under the Espionage Act, plus a trio added on 27th July. Additionally, Trump faces 34 felony charges for alleged falsification of business records in what many legal experts consider a fairly weak case filed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office earlier this year. On top of all that, an investigation in Georgia into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s certified victory and award the state’s electoral college votes to himself is ongoing.

The specific federal statutes under which Trump was indicted yesterday — bringing his total number of felony charges to 78 — have stirred debates among both political partisans and legal scholars, particularly regarding the “obstructing an official proceeding” charge. The three conspiracy laws that serve as the basis for the four most recent felony charges encompass a wide range of behaviours. The first statute, “conspiracy against the United States” (18 U.S.C. § 371), is used for broad-based charges which have been leveraged against a diverse range of entities, from terrorist group al-Qaeda to high-ranking executives implicated in the Volkswagen AG emissions scandal.

The second statute, “conspiracy against rights” (18 U.S.C. § 241), has a storied history. It was initially instituted in the aftermath of the American Civil War to safeguard the constitutional rights of newly emancipated African-Americans — and then again during the 1960s, in Supreme Court cases like United States v. Guest (1966). More recently, it served as the grounds for the conviction of “based poster” Douglas Mackey, better known to fans by his pseudonym “Ricky Vaughn”. Mackey was convicted for social media posts that misleadingly suggested supporters of Hillary Clinton could cast their votes via text or social media, which the federal government characterised as interference with the constitutionally-protected right to vote.

“Corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding” (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)), was introduced in 2002, and has expanded well beyond its original scope, such as during the prosecution of 290 individuals associated with the 2021 US Capitol riots (over 70 have been convicted). Prior to that, it was used in 2019 to convict Trump associate Roger Stone during the Mueller Special Counsel investigation for lying to the US House Committee on Intelligence (Trump would pardon Stone, as well as advisor Paul Manafort, who had been convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371).

The use of this statute to prosecute Capitol protestors has been met with pushback from some legal experts, who argue that the law should only be applicable to proceedings where evidence is being presented, and not for administrative or ceremonial events such as the Electoral College vote count. Despite these concerns, several federal judges have upheld its use, ruling that it has been invoked appropriately and is not unconstitutionally vague.

As Trump continues his presidential campaign, he faces the daunting task of contesting these charges. While the New York case against him isn’t strong, federal prosecutions are more challenging: in 2022, only 0.4% of defendants in federal criminal cases were acquitted (1.9% were convicted) — and the vast majority never made it to trial. 

Though the situation may seem dire to some outside observers, from a political perspective this could all still work in Trump’s favour. The publicity generated from so many felony charges, plus any additional ones issued from the Georgia investigation, provides abundant opportunity for media engagement and denouncing the ongoing “witch hunt” — the sheer volume can be presented as not so much prosecution as persecution. If he is successful at the ballot box, the presidential pardon power could serve as his “get out of jail free” card should he be convicted before the election, and swiftly quell any future legal challenges. If he fails to win, however, Trump’s circumstances may take a turn for the worse. 


Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work

MoustacheClubUS

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

55 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Every American should be ashamed that this is going on whilst the current President is effectively granted immunity from investigation for what increasingly looks like treason.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

YOU CANNOT SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT !

michael harris
michael harris
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You are John McEnroe!

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  michael harris

And I claim my ÂŁ20

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  michael harris

And I claim my ÂŁ20

michael harris
michael harris
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You are John McEnroe!

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Not just the current President, but virtually every other politician in America, Red or Blue! Only one man in America is getting this type of attention and he just coincidentally is the one who has pledged to “drain the swamp”, which is Washington DC. The buried treasure is just too horrific to reveal for both sides.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

YOU CANNOT SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT !

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Not just the current President, but virtually every other politician in America, Red or Blue! Only one man in America is getting this type of attention and he just coincidentally is the one who has pledged to “drain the swamp”, which is Washington DC. The buried treasure is just too horrific to reveal for both sides.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Every American should be ashamed that this is going on whilst the current President is effectively granted immunity from investigation for what increasingly looks like treason.

Andrew Buckley
Andrew Buckley
9 months ago

I do wonder if the great democratic experiment is coming to an end in the west?
Peak Democracy was probably back in the 1990’s although signs then that it wouldn’t be tolerated much longer. Globalisation and the growth in power of supra-national bodies (WEF, WHO, EU, etc) decreases the power of local politicians in individual countries. A benefit of this to national politicians is that it is easy to sound off but responsibility and accountability has become increasingly easy to avoid by blaming any inability to act on some nebulous external intangible “rule”.
Trump is/was a reaction to all this but in a somewhat chaotic way as was the EU referendum in the UK. Neither Trump’s world view nor a realistic exit from the EU was to be allowed and tolerated and so pretty much everyone with a media voice was aligned against these.
Bureaucracy is the tool of the powerful as it is very difficult to fight against – the rules are the rules is a mantra that so many politicians have used to the world over to excuse not going ahead with policies popular with their various electorates. If that doesn’t work then some nebulous Supreme Court decision is used.
Since the second world war the proletariat became increasingly better educated, informed and wealthy. Too much competition then to the new aristocrats to be allowed.
Push them back down as can be seen by the insanity of increasing asset prices that stop too many no longer being able to buy a house and start a family through artificially decreasing interest rates so that those already “with” can benefit and those yet to acquire can be kept in their boxes.
Anyway, cynical, moi? Yes.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

“Democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the others”. Winston Churchill.

Eric Parker
Eric Parker
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

Good points. Nick Timothy made a similar argument in the Telegraph recently. He’s just been selected as a Tory candidate.

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago
Reply to  Eric Parker

Is he they guy behind amazingly successful Theresa May premiership?

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago
Reply to  Eric Parker

Is he they guy behind amazingly successful Theresa May premiership?

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

“Democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the others”. Winston Churchill.

Eric Parker
Eric Parker
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

Good points. Nick Timothy made a similar argument in the Telegraph recently. He’s just been selected as a Tory candidate.

Andrew Buckley
Andrew Buckley
9 months ago

I do wonder if the great democratic experiment is coming to an end in the west?
Peak Democracy was probably back in the 1990’s although signs then that it wouldn’t be tolerated much longer. Globalisation and the growth in power of supra-national bodies (WEF, WHO, EU, etc) decreases the power of local politicians in individual countries. A benefit of this to national politicians is that it is easy to sound off but responsibility and accountability has become increasingly easy to avoid by blaming any inability to act on some nebulous external intangible “rule”.
Trump is/was a reaction to all this but in a somewhat chaotic way as was the EU referendum in the UK. Neither Trump’s world view nor a realistic exit from the EU was to be allowed and tolerated and so pretty much everyone with a media voice was aligned against these.
Bureaucracy is the tool of the powerful as it is very difficult to fight against – the rules are the rules is a mantra that so many politicians have used to the world over to excuse not going ahead with policies popular with their various electorates. If that doesn’t work then some nebulous Supreme Court decision is used.
Since the second world war the proletariat became increasingly better educated, informed and wealthy. Too much competition then to the new aristocrats to be allowed.
Push them back down as can be seen by the insanity of increasing asset prices that stop too many no longer being able to buy a house and start a family through artificially decreasing interest rates so that those already “with” can benefit and those yet to acquire can be kept in their boxes.
Anyway, cynical, moi? Yes.

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
9 months ago

I was wondering why they don’t just let a class of lawyers and media types run the country, without bothering the electorate. But then I realised that they actually need that audience participation. It provides the pixie-dust of “democracy”, and greatly adds to the drama.

AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Neale

And revenue from advertising.

AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Neale

And revenue from advertising.

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
9 months ago

I was wondering why they don’t just let a class of lawyers and media types run the country, without bothering the electorate. But then I realised that they actually need that audience participation. It provides the pixie-dust of “democracy”, and greatly adds to the drama.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
9 months ago

The Democrat zealots are greatly improving Trump’s chances for re election.

D Walsh
D Walsh
9 months ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Trump is going to jail, its what all the ruling class/establishment want, they tend to get what they want

Andrew Buckley
Andrew Buckley
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Don’t agree. Trump will be embroiled in chaos and Biden will be disappeared somehow. In my view the next election will be between one Red and one Blue candidate, both of whom are acceptable to the “establishment” so it really won’t matter who wins.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

Who is the Establishment? I presume you’re a black person on benefits who lives in a tower block lol 

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Are you serious? Establishment or deep state are the global elite who run the world, bankers, pharmaceutical, oil giants, Bill Gates the list goes on. Presidents of any persuasion ALL answer to them while the population THINK they’ve had a choice.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Are you serious? Establishment or deep state are the global elite who run the world, bankers, pharmaceutical, oil giants, Bill Gates the list goes on. Presidents of any persuasion ALL answer to them while the population THINK they’ve had a choice.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

Who is the Establishment? I presume you’re a black person on benefits who lives in a tower block lol 

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

You speak as if this is a conspiracy. It’s not. Trump is a conspiracy theorist and sadly, a genuine narcissist with a diagnosable string of symptoms, as opposed to someone at whom the term is thrown because they are disliked. His defence against trying to overturn the elected President is that he ‘Genuinely believed there was a conspiracy to steal the election’. If that is so despite all the evidence that he was wrong, Trump is credulous and gullible and not fit to be POTUS.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Don’t think the Forever Government is engaging in a conspiracy to keep Trump out of office? Read how they bragged in Time magazine about doing exactly that. These charges are just the latest iteration of that “shadow campaign.” https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That women become men is a conspiracy. Systemic racism is also a conspiracy. Stolen elections are also a conspiracy but one that the deep state does not allow, so those who espouse it e.g. Trump must be punished with the full weight of the state prosecution system.
Biden is corrupt. His son has ties to corrupt Ukrainian corporations, a fact that may be one of the reasons for the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In 2020, I voted for a man that everybody hated, but it was either that or vote for a party that hates me.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Don’t think the Forever Government is engaging in a conspiracy to keep Trump out of office? Read how they bragged in Time magazine about doing exactly that. These charges are just the latest iteration of that “shadow campaign.” https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That women become men is a conspiracy. Systemic racism is also a conspiracy. Stolen elections are also a conspiracy but one that the deep state does not allow, so those who espouse it e.g. Trump must be punished with the full weight of the state prosecution system.
Biden is corrupt. His son has ties to corrupt Ukrainian corporations, a fact that may be one of the reasons for the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In 2020, I voted for a man that everybody hated, but it was either that or vote for a party that hates me.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

The fact that Trump continues to climb in the polls in the face of all these spurious charges suggests that the country’s simmering outrage with this ruling class – especially its increasingly rabid and obviously irrational woke-ness since Trump’s election in 2016 – is going to make of him the exception that proves that rule.

Andrew Buckley
Andrew Buckley
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Don’t agree. Trump will be embroiled in chaos and Biden will be disappeared somehow. In my view the next election will be between one Red and one Blue candidate, both of whom are acceptable to the “establishment” so it really won’t matter who wins.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

You speak as if this is a conspiracy. It’s not. Trump is a conspiracy theorist and sadly, a genuine narcissist with a diagnosable string of symptoms, as opposed to someone at whom the term is thrown because they are disliked. His defence against trying to overturn the elected President is that he ‘Genuinely believed there was a conspiracy to steal the election’. If that is so despite all the evidence that he was wrong, Trump is credulous and gullible and not fit to be POTUS.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

The fact that Trump continues to climb in the polls in the face of all these spurious charges suggests that the country’s simmering outrage with this ruling class – especially its increasingly rabid and obviously irrational woke-ness since Trump’s election in 2016 – is going to make of him the exception that proves that rule.

D Walsh
D Walsh
9 months ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Trump is going to jail, its what all the ruling class/establishment want, they tend to get what they want

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
9 months ago

The Democrat zealots are greatly improving Trump’s chances for re election.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
9 months ago

I imagine Trump’s opponents would want all this to continue without resolution until after the election. That way they only have to worry about facing an embattled Trump and not whoever might replace him as candidate.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
9 months ago

I imagine Trump’s opponents would want all this to continue without resolution until after the election. That way they only have to worry about facing an embattled Trump and not whoever might replace him as candidate.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago

Trump has committed to cancel the US’s membership of the deeply corrupt World Health Organisation if he becomes president, the WHO being the greatest threat to democracy the world has ever seen. Once the WHO declares climate ‘boiling’ (the UN lost all credibility with that one word in my opinion) as a pandemic and the Global Pandemic Treaty is signed and becomes law our sovereignty will be overruled and we’ll be forced to follow their dictates. As the saying goes ‘we ain’t seen nothing yet’. He’d get my vote on that one commitment alone.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

The thing about the WHO agreement is that any country can say FU at any time. There’s nothing the WHO can do. Nations will still have to agree to any measures recommended by the WHO.

PS: The UN lost all credibility long before the global boiling nonsense.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There is a clause in the Global Pandemic Treaty that says each signatory/country can exercise their sovereignty and say fu

 to the WHO ruling UNLESS 

 and here’s the killer 

 ‘their decisions pose a threat to the health and wellbeing of their citizens’ which the WHO gets to decide. It’s all in the detail.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

Your tin foil hat is on a little tight today, dearie.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago

You can read the Global Pandemic Treaty for yourself, it is easily accessible, that’s IF you can drag urself away from making snide insults to contributors. Ignorance is obviously your bliss.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago

Read the draft treaty. It’s readily available. Ignorance is bliss I fear.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

You must be the happiest person in the world then

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

You must be the happiest person in the world then

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
9 months ago

Don’t be mean, Champagne Socialist.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Blissfully mean though!

Last edited 9 months ago by Jane H
Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Blissfully mean though thankfully

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Blissfully mean though!

Last edited 9 months ago by Jane H
Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Blissfully mean though thankfully

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago

You can read the Global Pandemic Treaty for yourself, it is easily accessible, that’s IF you can drag urself away from making snide insults to contributors. Ignorance is obviously your bliss.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago

Read the draft treaty. It’s readily available. Ignorance is bliss I fear.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
9 months ago

Don’t be mean, Champagne Socialist.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

I’ll revise my comment. There’s nothing the WHO can do to first world nations that pay for its existence. Even a small country like Sweden can say FU. What’s the WHO going to do? Kick it out? It’s the third world countries who could get shafted once again. They rely on the generosity of the WHO and first world nations and could be pressured financially to submit.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Unimaginable how it could be enforced, i agree but after the global dictates on covid were slavishly followed who (pardon the pun) knows how signatories of the treaty could be penalised.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Unimaginable how it could be enforced, i agree but after the global dictates on covid were slavishly followed who (pardon the pun) knows how signatories of the treaty could be penalised.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

Your tin foil hat is on a little tight today, dearie.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

I’ll revise my comment. There’s nothing the WHO can do to first world nations that pay for its existence. Even a small country like Sweden can say FU. What’s the WHO going to do? Kick it out? It’s the third world countries who could get shafted once again. They rely on the generosity of the WHO and first world nations and could be pressured financially to submit.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There is a clause in the Global Pandemic Treaty that says each signatory/country can exercise their sovereignty and say fu

 to the WHO ruling UNLESS 

 and here’s the killer 

 ‘their decisions pose a threat to the health and wellbeing of their citizens’ which the WHO gets to decide. It’s all in the detail.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jane H

The thing about the WHO agreement is that any country can say FU at any time. There’s nothing the WHO can do. Nations will still have to agree to any measures recommended by the WHO.

PS: The UN lost all credibility long before the global boiling nonsense.

Jane H
Jane H
9 months ago

Trump has committed to cancel the US’s membership of the deeply corrupt World Health Organisation if he becomes president, the WHO being the greatest threat to democracy the world has ever seen. Once the WHO declares climate ‘boiling’ (the UN lost all credibility with that one word in my opinion) as a pandemic and the Global Pandemic Treaty is signed and becomes law our sovereignty will be overruled and we’ll be forced to follow their dictates. As the saying goes ‘we ain’t seen nothing yet’. He’d get my vote on that one commitment alone.

AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago

Perhaps a sign of machine politics gone too far? When politicians have a job for life, depending on a captive electorate, those in charge can get sloppy thinking that they can always depend on ‘their’ electorate to forgive them. And eventually this goes too far and the ‘fickle’ electorate vote for someone else.
Trump was not a machine politician and threatened to ‘drain the swamp’ – so he had to go, and more recently be prevented from coming back. There are many Democrats that believe all these charges are indications of alleged guilt, but there are also people who think that the number of indictments are a sign that ‘they’ really are put to get him.
If I was on Team Biden I would worry that what goes around might come back to bite them.

Last edited 9 months ago by AC Harper
AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago

Perhaps a sign of machine politics gone too far? When politicians have a job for life, depending on a captive electorate, those in charge can get sloppy thinking that they can always depend on ‘their’ electorate to forgive them. And eventually this goes too far and the ‘fickle’ electorate vote for someone else.
Trump was not a machine politician and threatened to ‘drain the swamp’ – so he had to go, and more recently be prevented from coming back. There are many Democrats that believe all these charges are indications of alleged guilt, but there are also people who think that the number of indictments are a sign that ‘they’ really are put to get him.
If I was on Team Biden I would worry that what goes around might come back to bite them.

Last edited 9 months ago by AC Harper
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago

America is just like a Larry David comedy TV show :Biden and Trump could have been invented by the great comedian!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago

America is just like a Larry David comedy TV show :Biden and Trump could have been invented by the great comedian!

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
9 months ago

I’m no fan of Trump but this whole plethora of indictments against the previous president is reminiscent of a banana republic. If he’s a candidate during the trial, which is likely, this will be more obvious,

Sometime next year a presidential candidate, in the middle of his run, might be sent to jail.

Last edited 9 months ago by Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago

Why do you think Trump should be above the law?

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
9 months ago

Do you think he should be beneath it?

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
9 months ago

Do you think he should be beneath it?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago

Why do you think Trump should be above the law?

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
9 months ago

I’m no fan of Trump but this whole plethora of indictments against the previous president is reminiscent of a banana republic. If he’s a candidate during the trial, which is likely, this will be more obvious,

Sometime next year a presidential candidate, in the middle of his run, might be sent to jail.

Last edited 9 months ago by Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Cal RW
Cal RW
9 months ago

Well, if the majority of these comments have substantiated anything it is Trump’s contention that he could shoot somebody and not lose voters.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
9 months ago

Lock them up under poor conditions until they agree to plead guilty. Swamp them with legal costs until they agree to plead guilty. Seems there are ways to always get a guilty plea. Not exactly blind justice but only half the public cares.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago

Has anyone commenting here actually read the indictment?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I have, and seen a TV discussion explaining it in depth. But then I’m British former TV News staff and have no party political axe to grind. My objection to Trump is that he is a danger to all Europe, particularly Ukraine, and a danger to Taiwan. His conduct in Afghanistan killed thousands and has crippled women’s rights for a generation at least. He is responsible for the deaths of our Kurdish allies and the idea of him having the power to do further harm is frightening.

D Walsh
D Walsh
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Orange man bad

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Very bad case of TDS in U.R.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Very bad case of TDS in U.R.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I thing you are confusing Trump with Biden

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

They’re both trash for different reasons.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

They’re both trash for different reasons.

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Pretty sure that Biden left Afghanistan – where the US had no business being anyway. As for women’s rights – the US had a whole generation to change attitudes and failed. Unless you were hoping for a permanent western presence for ever, this was always going to happen.

D Walsh
D Walsh
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Orange man bad

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I thing you are confusing Trump with Biden

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Pretty sure that Biden left Afghanistan – where the US had no business being anyway. As for women’s rights – the US had a whole generation to change attitudes and failed. Unless you were hoping for a permanent western presence for ever, this was always going to happen.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Like the Alvin Bragg indictment in NYC, it has so few defenders–and Jack Smith is so hysterical on the subject of Jan 6–that I wouldn’t bother.

Even the WaPo, of all places, published a highly skeptical piece on the latest indictment.

But look, none of these charges–“mishandling” confidential documents at Mar-a-Lago, “lying” about the election results–are concerning to me as a voter. I suspect many Trump voters feel the same, not least because Trump had perfectly good reason to be skeptical of 2020 election results. I’ll still be voting for Trump, if indeed he is the GOP nominee. (Though of course, that could always be because I’m a domestic terrorist, a bigot, a brainwashed member of a cult, etc.)

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I have, and seen a TV discussion explaining it in depth. But then I’m British former TV News staff and have no party political axe to grind. My objection to Trump is that he is a danger to all Europe, particularly Ukraine, and a danger to Taiwan. His conduct in Afghanistan killed thousands and has crippled women’s rights for a generation at least. He is responsible for the deaths of our Kurdish allies and the idea of him having the power to do further harm is frightening.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Like the Alvin Bragg indictment in NYC, it has so few defenders–and Jack Smith is so hysterical on the subject of Jan 6–that I wouldn’t bother.

Even the WaPo, of all places, published a highly skeptical piece on the latest indictment.

But look, none of these charges–“mishandling” confidential documents at Mar-a-Lago, “lying” about the election results–are concerning to me as a voter. I suspect many Trump voters feel the same, not least because Trump had perfectly good reason to be skeptical of 2020 election results. I’ll still be voting for Trump, if indeed he is the GOP nominee. (Though of course, that could always be because I’m a domestic terrorist, a bigot, a brainwashed member of a cult, etc.)

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago

Has anyone commenting here actually read the indictment?

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

Got to admire Trump’s ability to get so many to miss he’s all about himself and their support just his latest vehicle for personal gain.

But one born every day I guess.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

Got to admire Trump’s ability to get so many to miss he’s all about himself and their support just his latest vehicle for personal gain.

But one born every day I guess.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago

I haven’t read the indictment and I’m not a lawyer but I saw what happened on Jan 6 and there’s a case to answer, that much is obvious.
Why do you people think that Trump is above the law?

Simon Tavanyar
Simon Tavanyar
9 months ago

You think you saw what happened on Jan 6 because there was a conspiracy to exaggerate a rambunctious crowd into a plot to overthrow a government. When only one side gets to show all the video, what you see is what they want you to see.
Everywhere in media the quotation is “… the false allegation that the election was stolen”. But those who benefitted from the hijinks are the ones calling it false. Six urban jurisdictions decided the 2020 election, and all of them are controlled by Democrats. They changed rules illegally. The ballot collection process was egregious and unprecedented. Zuckerburg spent $400M on it. You can call it stolen. Or hijacked, rigged, or invalid. What you can’t call it is ‘fair’.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Tavanyar

No doubt all of this has been proven in a court of law?
Oh. Even the Trump judges threw these asinine claims out? And Trump knew it was a pack of lies yet the morons on Jan 6 believed his nonsense and attacked the Capitol?
Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than that, conspiracy boy.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

The thing is no-one really knows what happened at the Jan 6 protests. Was it violent or was it peaceful? If it was violent, then those responsible should be held accountable. But if protesters should be held accountable for violence, why then were those responsible for violence during the Black Lives Matter marches allowed to go free?
The fact of the matter is that the law is not being equally applied and that is a much much bigger problem than any shenanigans Trump or his supporters got up to. When laws are only applied to punish political opponents, the citizenry begin to lose faith in the entire judiciary. This then results in lying, cover-ups, corruption cases, fraud, and vigilanteism. The only people happy with this state of affairs are those who blindly believe that they are on the ‘right side of history’ and cannot even begin to conceive that the state apparatus will eventually turn on them. We already see it happening in the case of Nigel Farage and others whose bank accounts were frozen because some corporate busybody disagrees with his political leanings.
Surely not everyone who voted for Trump in 2020 are all brain-dead cultists or morons like your posts here seem to suggest?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Jan 6 was obviously violent – the footage is there to prove it beyond any kind of doubt.
You are just flat out wrong about the BLM marches. Hundreds were charged and dozens convicted, many with lengthy prison sentences. Just because you ignore facts that don’t suit your narrative doesn’t make them not true…
If the citizenry are losing faith in the judiciary it is because hucksters like Trump are telling them that the systems is stacked against them for his own purposes and it seems that there are plenty dim enough to believe him, you included.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

By the standards of American protests countrywide the preceding year, the Jan 6 riot was hardly violent at all.

The notable exception is the diminutive (5’2″, 115 lbs) Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed female shot and killed by Lt. Byrd, as she “climbed through a broken window in a barricaded door.”

No one among the “mob” (a couple dozen people) shot back, or even advanced. Medics reportedly had no trouble getting to Ashli Babbitt–suggesting there was not some large, unruly, violent crowd.

Last edited 9 months ago by Paul Hendricks
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Jan 6 was obviously violent – the footage is there to prove it beyond any kind of doubt.
You are just flat out wrong about the BLM marches. Hundreds were charged and dozens convicted, many with lengthy prison sentences. Just because you ignore facts that don’t suit your narrative doesn’t make them not true…
If the citizenry are losing faith in the judiciary it is because hucksters like Trump are telling them that the systems is stacked against them for his own purposes and it seems that there are plenty dim enough to believe him, you included.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

By the standards of American protests countrywide the preceding year, the Jan 6 riot was hardly violent at all.

The notable exception is the diminutive (5’2″, 115 lbs) Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed female shot and killed by Lt. Byrd, as she “climbed through a broken window in a barricaded door.”

No one among the “mob” (a couple dozen people) shot back, or even advanced. Medics reportedly had no trouble getting to Ashli Babbitt–suggesting there was not some large, unruly, violent crowd.

Last edited 9 months ago by Paul Hendricks
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

The thing is no-one really knows what happened at the Jan 6 protests. Was it violent or was it peaceful? If it was violent, then those responsible should be held accountable. But if protesters should be held accountable for violence, why then were those responsible for violence during the Black Lives Matter marches allowed to go free?
The fact of the matter is that the law is not being equally applied and that is a much much bigger problem than any shenanigans Trump or his supporters got up to. When laws are only applied to punish political opponents, the citizenry begin to lose faith in the entire judiciary. This then results in lying, cover-ups, corruption cases, fraud, and vigilanteism. The only people happy with this state of affairs are those who blindly believe that they are on the ‘right side of history’ and cannot even begin to conceive that the state apparatus will eventually turn on them. We already see it happening in the case of Nigel Farage and others whose bank accounts were frozen because some corporate busybody disagrees with his political leanings.
Surely not everyone who voted for Trump in 2020 are all brain-dead cultists or morons like your posts here seem to suggest?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Tavanyar

No doubt all of this has been proven in a court of law?
Oh. Even the Trump judges threw these asinine claims out? And Trump knew it was a pack of lies yet the morons on Jan 6 believed his nonsense and attacked the Capitol?
Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than that, conspiracy boy.

Simon Tavanyar
Simon Tavanyar
9 months ago

You think you saw what happened on Jan 6 because there was a conspiracy to exaggerate a rambunctious crowd into a plot to overthrow a government. When only one side gets to show all the video, what you see is what they want you to see.
Everywhere in media the quotation is “… the false allegation that the election was stolen”. But those who benefitted from the hijinks are the ones calling it false. Six urban jurisdictions decided the 2020 election, and all of them are controlled by Democrats. They changed rules illegally. The ballot collection process was egregious and unprecedented. Zuckerburg spent $400M on it. You can call it stolen. Or hijacked, rigged, or invalid. What you can’t call it is ‘fair’.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago

I haven’t read the indictment and I’m not a lawyer but I saw what happened on Jan 6 and there’s a case to answer, that much is obvious.
Why do you people think that Trump is above the law?