The Trump indictment has no alternative facts
The questions are which facts the jury sees, and how much some voters care.
Donald Trump’s federal indictment offers insight on our political divisions.
People worry about “fake news,” conspiracy theories, deep fakes, and social media hoaxes that make public debate impossible. In a democracy you debate; but what do you do when you don’t agree on the facts you’re debating?
In Trump’s latest criminal case, nobody seriously disputes the facts. Photographs attached to the indictment show cartons of documents that Trump took away from the White House. Aides stacked some in a bathroom and others on a ballroom stage. The indictment details secrets contained in some of those papers, such as war plans and nuclear weapons information. Trump showed or described some documents to visitors.
For a time after the FBI searched his residence in 2022, Trump tried to leave open the possibility that federal agents had planted evidence, but he seems to have abandoned that theme for the moment. He more often has said that he had a right to the documents or that he declassified them, though no evidence backs that up.
Once Trump assembles his latest legal team, he may well build up a fierce argument over the facts. For decades, his legal and public relations strategies have been to contest every point, no matter how obvious or tangential. The satirical website The Onion captured spirit of this approach in a parody headline: “Trump Denies Storing Documents in a Bathroom: ‘Just Because a Room Has a Toilet Doesn’t Make It A Bathroom.’”
But for the most part, the legal case rests on which facts are in evidence, and the political debate is over how much the facts matter.
My colleague Carrie Johnson called my attention to the parts of the indictment that seem to rest on information from one of Trump’s former lawyers. This information shows Trump’s intent to defy requests to return classified information.
The indictment describes the actions of M. Evan Corcoran, identified as “Trump Attorney 1.” Ordinarily, Corcoran’s interactions would be covered by attorney-client privilege, but a judge allowed an exception after the government presented evidence that Corcoran had acted in furtherance of a crime.
The indictment accuses Trump of suggesting that Trump Attorney 1 “hide or destroy documents,” or falsely claim that Trump didn’t have them.
One question is whether the lawyer’s notes and testimony will remain in evidence at trial, or whether Trump’s new legal team will try to have those facts excluded.
Either way, the facts are available in the court of public opinion, and Republican candidates and lawmakers are adjusting accordingly.
On NPR, my colleague Dierdre Walsh observes that many Republican lawmakers are avoiding much comment on the substance of the charges against Trump. They instead claim a double standard because President Biden has not been indicted for classified papers found in his home.
Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz addressed this point on Morning Edition this week. “The key distinction between these charges and the facts that we know about President Biden,” he said, is that “while there may have been documents improperly removed… there’s no evidence of intent—no evidence to willfully retain classified documents.”
But many Republicans remain with Trump, and some in Congress have been clear about why. Dierdre Walsh has spoken with aides who say Republicans need Trump on their side for their 2024 re-elections.
Republican base voters still support the former president. And that is a political fact that no development has yet changed.
Thanks for reading Differ We Must, a companion to my forthcoming book of the same name. The book tells Lincoln’s life story through his meetings with people who disagreed with him; this column explores our modern divisions. If you haven’t taken a free or paid subscription to receive my notes by email, you can do it in seconds below: