The Company You Keep

pic.twitter.com/0l1xtYZeeK

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) August 8, 2023

I think Goldsmith is a good faith actor. But the reasoning is sloppy and ignores the most basic counterarguments. Since a coup plotter will always have supporters & will of course attack an indictment, does a republic really have no tools to defend itself? https://t.co/56CS4TQCKO

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 8, 2023

4/ is the glue and integument that allows republican government to function. Goldsmiths list of DOJ errors which have brought it into disrepute is tendentious and flawed. But the large point is true. Having the doj of a president bring charges agst his predecessor …

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 8, 2023

6/ conduct, especially criminal conduct that strikes at the core function of the state itself is vastly more damaging. I think Goldsmith must realize this at some level and that’s why he gives the whole question barely more than a sentence long hand wave. In his speeches and …

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 8, 2023

8/ is invulnerable because he runs for office again and attacks the legitimacy of the prosecution? Stating the matter plainly illustrates the absurdity of the proposition. Goldsmiths arguments simply are not serious as long as he refuses to even engage this side of the question.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 8, 2023

So, of course:

Well, @jacklgoldsmith's problematic got a seal of approval from the last guy in creation you'd want approval from. pic.twitter.com/kM4bhdxRX0

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) August 8, 2023

Oh, wait a minute; it just got worse.

Anti-Trump conservative warns of potential 'historic disaster' of former president's prosecution https://t.co/PKvOBrVS7K

— Raw Story (@RawStory) August 8, 2023

“Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump," he argues. "The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster."

Lawyers generally know better than to critique a case they aren’t working. The lawyers involved always know much more than you do, and are never telling everything in public.  But, “Trump’s intent”? Not the way criminal law uses that term. Trump’s “freedom of speech”? Again, not as the law understands that term. “The contours of presidential power”? Grand hand-waving to say Presidents ARE above the law because the only rule that applies to them is impeachment:

"Regrettably, in February 2021, the Senate passed up a chance to convict Mr. Trump and bar him from future office, after the House of Representatives rightly impeached him for his election shenanigans," he writes. "Had that occurred, Attorney General Merrick Garland may well have decided not to appoint a special counsel for this difficult case. But here we are."

No President in American history has ever been impeached and removed from office. Senators simply don’t see that as their duty, the way jurors consistently have for centuries. No President in history has ever been prosecuted for crimes, either. If we don’t do it now, then Trump is right and the presidency and just running for President are get out of jail free cards.

So here we are.