If you’re going to subject yourself to one of Donald Trump’s social media tirades, it’s generally best to do so with a strong drink close at hand. Every now and then, however, the former president’s all-caps screeds offer a useful road map to understanding the basics of whatever issue he’s raving about — as long as you flip everything he says right-side up.
On Tuesday, Trump took to his failing website, Truth Social, to rage against the special counsel Jack Smith’s new and improved indictment against him for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
“For them to do this after our Supreme Court Victory on Immunity and more, is shocking,” Trump wrote. The new indictment, he claimed, “has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY.”
Poor Trump. He was confident that after the Supreme Court — his Supreme Court — went rogue last month and immunized him from prosecution for virtually all “official” acts, he was in the clear.
But the Supreme Court’s bonkers decision did leave a few doors open for criminal prosecutions of former presidents, and Smith has taken full advantage of them. His new indictment, while nine pages shorter than the original, retains all the same fraud, obstruction and conspiracy charges. It leaves out only the actions that the court’s majority ruled were unquestionably immune, such as Trump’s attempts to force the Justice Department to investigate nonexistent voter fraud in swing states. In this regard, it very conspicuously does not have “all the problems of the old indictment.”
Nor is it accurate to say, as Trump did, that “you’re not even allowed to bring cases literally right before an Election.” He was referring, presumably, to the Justice Department’s so-called 60-day rule, which is not actually a rule but a general guideline that prohibits taking overt steps that could influence how people vote in an upcoming election.
This is a sensible caution in a rule-of-law society, but it doesn’t apply to existing cases that are already filed and under the control of the judicial branch, as Smith’s prosecution of Trump has been for more than a year.
In fact, this is only an issue because Trump, abetted by the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court, has appealed and delayed the proceedings at every step. The justices had multiple opportunities to fast-track Trump’s appeals as early as December. They rejected all of them with no explanation, waiting until the very last moment to issue a ruling with zero constitutional support.
Now Trump is acting as if it’s all so unfair — or “lawfare and weaponization,” as he put it. So flip that right-side up: He’s the person who chose to weaponize the law, and the presidency, no one else. If the rule of law means anything, it means that he will face accountability for his actions, sooner or later.