Where We Are This Week 08/03/2023
On Trump's third indictment, the coup in Niger, and who you should trust.
Every week, I sit down at my computer and try to tell you what I think is true, and what I think matters. Often, I find myself faced with dense, complex issues that need a lot of parsing before I can organize my own opinions on them.
Some, like this week’s topics, I didn’t want to write about at all because they’re so involved. But here I am, regardless, typing away about some esoteric geopolitical strategy in a land far, far away that I found important enough that I couldn’t ignore it.
As you may know, I’m neither a legal analyst nor am I experienced in any way with geopolitics - unless playing Risk in high school counts. So, why should you trust my degree-less, un-credentialed opinion on any of these issues?
Well, first of all you shouldn’t. Trust no one. Not even no one.
But you can trust that I’m trying, every week, to give you an honest report of a) what the facts are and b) what I honestly think. Does that make me better than CNN and Fox News? Of course. I mean, that’s for you to decide.
Really the only takeaway I have to give you is this, as the presidential election and the next four years of our country hang in the balance, you will be tasked with the responsibility of forming opinions on a vast array of topics. You can certainly rely on any number of experts to convey what they think is true, but almost no issue is so shrouded in mystery or proprietary jargon that you can’t pierce to the heart of the matter with a little effort.
If you want, you can pour through hours of content and stay awake late at night reading about how Nixon and JFK Jr both submitted slates of electors for the state of Hawaii in 1960 and contemplating if that’s relevant to today, or I can do it for you.
Totally your call.
Lock Him Up!
Let’s face it, you guys. Donald Trump is going to prison - and that is precisely how he’ll win the nomination and then the election.
It’s a strange, circuitous campaign tactic, I’ll admit, to rack up as many indictments as possible so that you’re literally the only thing anyone can talk about. It’s a strategy that on one hand risks jail time and your reputation - ha! - but on the other hand, generates a ton of free press and political martyrdom.
Plus, if you win the election, you can pardon yourself. So, really, it’s a win-win situation. You get to be president and you get to bolster your street cred.
I’m not saying that he necessarily deserves to be put in the clink - though anyone who jokes about dating their daughter if she wasn’t, you know, his daughter, shouldn’t be just roaming the streets freely - but the odds are against him. The former president has already been indicted on three separate counts, and is likely facing another pending the Georgia investigation. Although, an indictment appears imminent in the Georgia case as proceedings appear to be wrapping up, and barriers have been erected around the courthouse in Fulton County, Georgia.
On August 1st, a Washington DC grand jury approved an indictment of the former president charging him with an attempt to defraud the federal government, disenfranchise millions of voters, and his role in the January 6th riot at the capitol.
Obviously, an indictment doesn’t convey guilt but Trump is facing an uphill battle with each case - especially, the documents one - in districts likely to have unfavorable juries. And given that the Trump team doesn’t have the best record of litigation, 1 out of 65 in election fraud lawsuits he initiated, it’s not certain he’ll fair better in any of the three (likely four) court cases he’s facing.
To say convicting a former president sets a dangerous precedent is putting it lightly. The evidence to do so would have to be so ironclad that the overwhelming majority of the nation supports the decision - which I do concede that by that standard, no president will ever be convicted of anything. Trump famously stated in 2016,"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" Not only is that hilarious, it’s probably true.
As the indictments roll in, Trump’s pole position for the nomination increasingly looks solidified with DeSantis’s grip on second place appears as if it may be susceptible to the growing campaign of Vivek Ramaswamy in the near future. Is it good for the future of the nation to imprison the most popular politician - President Obama excluded - in the country? I know, I know, Biden won the popular vote. But, you’re kidding yourself if you think that man could have garnered 80 million votes (10.5 million more than Obama) if literally anyone other than Donald J. Trump was his opponent.
The Charges
So, let’s take a look at the case against the former president. If special prosecutor Jack Smith could speak candidly, I would imagine he’d be the first to tell you the evidence against Trump isn’t as strong as he would like. Why, you ask? Well, because the few charges that Merrick Garland’s DoJ has levied against the GOP frontrunner appear to be an attempt to convict him of incitement but without actual incitement charges.
The charges include two felony counts accusing him of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 - the January 6th certification of electors - one count of attempting to defraud the federal government, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and one felony count of conspiracy against the civil rights of a fellow citizen under 18 U.S.C. § 241.
A quick read of any of these statutes reveals that their use against Trump is likely a misappropriation of the legal theory.
Most important are the obstruction charges. These are the ones that are directly in lieu of incitement charges. It does bare noting that an incitement conviction would bar Trump from holding or running for political office but none of the pending charges hold that penalty. Smith is claiming that it was Trump’s actions on January 6th that obstructed Mike Pence’s correct and obligatory certification of the election.
Now, Donald Trump and his team may have mislead or unwittingly duped a portion of his supporters into thinking that a) the election was mechanically stolen by ballot fraud, or b) that Pence actually had the legal authority to overturn or reject the election results, but the question of intent will still have to answered.
If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew the claims he was making were false but proceeded to espouse them anyways, then Smith and Co. might have a shot. Good luck. Not only will intent be impossible to prove, there’s no doubt in my mind that Donald Trump fully believes today, as he did then, that he rightfully won the 2020 presidential election. Ever since he formally entered the political stage in 2016, Trump’s detractors have both overestimated and underestimated his prowess, strategy, and integrity. The man is neither master manipulator, nor complete dunce.
He’s a man that readily believes any fiction - or nonfiction - that is complimentary to his ego and liking. I might be wrong in this, but I think assuming he has the capacity to plan and execute a covert, illegal scheme to undermine the election results is giving him far too much credit. Based upon what we already know about our gameshow host ex-president, Occam’s Razor would suggest that he whole-heartedly believed the election was stolen from him, and in short order, he’d have the votes to prove it.
Wait, there’s more?
Each charge is relatively novel as it's the first time we’ve had a president alleged to have attempted to impede election results and subsequently prosecuted for that. But what makes the obstruction charges the most significant is not only would Trump’s defense mitigate the damage of the latter charges, but the results of the obstruction allegation have ramifications that extend past the former the president and January 6th.
These charges will test the strength and extent of protected free speech in America. Granted, my opinion of all of this comes with the giant caveat that there will be no surprise, smoking gun revealed showing that Trump was fully aware he’d rightfully lost the election. So, save for that exception, let me explain what the consequences of a guilty verdict on these charges could imply.
Disinformation has been quite the buzzword the past several years, hasn’t it? Well, what we’ll see in the court case slated for next May, is a preliminary judgement on whether supposed ‘disinformation’ is protected by the 1st Amendment or not. Surely, if Trump sincerely held the belief that he had won the election in 2020, then he should have the legal right to attest that claim and advance relevant legal actions no matter how outlandish or spurious the belief is.
You and I both know how casually and arbitrarily the label of ‘disinformation’ is applied to controversial or inconvenient hypotheses and news stories a la the Hunter Biden laptop or the lab-leak hypothesis of Covid-19. Both of which are widely regarded as true a couple years after they were disparaged.
So, by the standard the Trump trial may set, it could hold someone legally responsible for spreading ‘disinformation’ regardless of the actual truth, or what they sincerely believe. First up, astrology!
But in all seriousness, any verdict derived from any of these cases will be immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court, and it’s quite feasible that a guilty verdict could be overturned by a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling. Either way, the majority would likely consist of three Trump appointees, and no matter how hard you squint, the optics of that are no better than the politicized prosecution of a former president.
We’ve got a long way to go; the trials aren’t scheduled until next year, then we’ll have an election - undoubtedly fraudulent no matter the outcome - an appeals process, and then, Supreme Court review. You can look forward to months and months (and months) of this type of entertainment all the while whatever little faith in public institutions is still held is steadily and assuredly eroded with each step.
And one more thing!
I would also like to add that the rightful or wrongful prosecution of Donald Trump will consume the American body politick until the election and well afterwards.
This will do nothing to serve the interests of the American public. We have an economy that is poised for recession, the dollar could collapse at any moment if the fed miscalculates its understanding of fiat, a war that could go nuclear with one poorly targeted missile, and the largest wealth gap America has ever seen.
You tell me how locking up Trump will immediately ameliorate these circumstances for working class Americans and I’ll provide the handcuffs.
If you think I’m going easy on the former president, it’s not my intention, and I think I’m fairly consistent when it comes to this matter. I wasn’t writing this particular newsletter at the time, but if I had been, after he lost the 2020 election you would have heard the following opinion.
I was of the belief that even if the election were legitimately stolen from the GOP, that Trump should concede and and plan to fight again in 2024. The threshold for convincing the majority of the electorate that he had actually won would have been so incredibly high that once Joe Biden had been declared the victor, veracity was a moot point; the integrity of the electoral process and the tattered unity of the country should have been paramount.
I do fear, however, that we’re well beyond reconciliation at this stage, but as with the majority of my predictions, I would love to be proved wrong. It would just be nice to see the levers of power, for once, oriented in a direction that helps - not distracts - our fellow Americans.
A Coup in Niger
This past week, in what is a culmination of increased tension in the Western African country, the President of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum, was deposed by a military coup.
The former French colony is a fledgling democracy but a recent spate of anti-French, anti-colonial sentiment seems to have contributed to the uprising. The French have historically played a major, influential role in the geopolitics of Western Africa nations. Many of which are former colonies, are Francophone nations, and use the Central African Franc as their currency. The imprint of the European nation is strongly felt in the region, and is becoming much less welcome than it used to be.
Despite France having officially departed from Niger in any ruling capacity, their strings very much remain attached. France is a nuclear world power with ambitions in the ascendency, and Niger is a resource-rich nation replete oil, lumber, and uranium. So, naturally, French troops have remained in Niger operating in collaboration with the Bazoum government and, who else, an American military presence.
The establishment of a military junta in Niger is only the latest in the region; there is now an uninterrupted chain of countries under military dictatorship stretching from the Red Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea have all undergone coups of their own in recent years, and have expressed vocal support for the junta in Niger.
To their credit, the Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS, a bloc of 15 African nations) has threatened the dictatorship in Niger with military intervention if the President Bazoum isn’t reinstated. As instability in the region snowballs, it wouldn’t be a surprise if more dominoes were to fall, but for now, a stalemate may have been reached as neither side will want to call each other’s bluff.
I wish I was more informed on what this meant for the people of Niger and the region as a whole, but my knowledge is limited at this point. The people of Africa have continually been exploited by nation-states and multi-national corporations alike, and by some cruel ironic fate, the region is continually rich with natural resources even as global wants and needs have evolved.
On an international scale, however, what the coup does present is an opportunity for Russia. Over recent years, Russia has increasingly expanded its role in foreign affairs. From the Artsakh region in Armenia/Azerbaijan to the Syrian Civil War, and the support for the coup in Mali, Russia has excised influence in significant ways.
Namely, through the Wagner Group. Yes, the same group that allegedly attempted their own coup in the Motherland a couple of months ago. The Wagner Group has routinely been deployed all throughout African nations as ‘peacekeeping’ mercenaries and it, along with Russia as a whole, appears to be looked upon favorably by the hegemony of the region. There are several reports that pro-Putin chants and Russian flags could be seen in Niger days after the successful coup. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Group, has already offered its services to Nigerien junta if it needs assistance maintaining order.
This falls in line with a developing story to which I’ve been playing close attention. The anti-French sentiment in Niger and the greater Françafrique conglomeration is equivalent to anti-Western sentiments. As the backlash of colonialism continues into the 21st century, countries like Russia and China, rightfully or wrongfully, offer a quasi antidote to the imperialism of the West.
What we’ve been seeing in the Middle East, Africa and South America (i.e. the BRICS nations) is a realignment of sorts that is threatening the United States and its Western allies as the global hegemon. And we all know what happens when global powers feel threatened!
Of course, what remains the most important is the impact the political turmoil will have on the people in Niger. What we must remember is that every conflict is not just a tool with which to extract a favorable political outcome, but there are countless lives at stake. But if the competing interests and civil wars of Libya and Syria have taught us anything, it’s that nation-states will always prioritize their sphere of influence over the well-being of the citizenry.
To a better next week,
Cheers,
~FDA