Former US President, Donald J. Trump was indicted on FOUR criminal counts by the United States District court for the District of Columbia in August.
Twice Impeached, three times indicted former U.S. President
On August 1, 2023, the United States of America versus Donald J. Trump (defendant) prepared by U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith was released to the public. This time Former U.S. President Trump was indicted in four criminal counts. All of which are in connection to the 2020 Election and subsequent insurrection in Capitol hill which took place on January 6, 2020.
Before you continue with this article, I recommend you read the entire indictment in the following link. The document is 45 pages long, but it is very well written and bring context to the issue; regardless of if you are a Trump fan or not. The way that is written will help you decide on your own, as you will be able to indecently verify all these allegations.
Read the entire criminal indictment here
Trump DC Court Indictment 01AUG2023
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Quite the read huh?
And as I imply in the spirit for this article, I am not trying to persuade you towards or against the former President. Some people love this dude, others hate his guts… and a smaller percentage is indifferent towards him. What we can agree is that some people who fall under the second category (who hate his guts) is that they consider Trump one of the most polarizing political figures in modern history.
And even those who do not agree with that statement, well – if they love Trump do they love everyone who does not like Trump? Or do they hate Trump-hater guts too? Spoiler alert, that is also – by definition – polarizing.
But the most important thing to understand for this article is what legal statutes are the basis for Trump indictment. So let’s summarize (in case you did not read the entire indictment yet – for whatever reason.
Count #1 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
18 U.S.C. § 371
Count #2 – Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
Count #3 – Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2
Count #4 – Conspiracy Against Rights
18 U.S.C. § 241
Like or dislike Trump, these are very serious charges. And although Trump is called by name in the indictment, the document also mentions several Co-conspirators. As of the time I am typing this article, the Co-conspirator names have not been released. But if you have been paying attention to this entire saga you can pretty much tell who is involved. And no, you might not be surprised at all once the names are officially released.
Until then I will not disclose who I am 99.999999% sure they are referring to. But as this is an ongoing process, it is only fair to let the legal system do its thing. Afterall, a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. And although the indictment is very damning, it is up to the courts to run the process. With that said, if an indictment of this nature is issued – it is likely because there is very substantial evidence for it. Otherwise this document would not exist. Simple enough.
In other words, we have to realize that it is not easy to compile such a lengthy document unless there is a lot of actual merit to these allegations. A seasoned prosecutor such as Jack smith will not be letting such an important case be dismissed by a technicality. Also, the manner of how it is written is very succinct, and is using very evocative language that is easily understood by the reader. Even if the reader does not have a law-attorney-type background. And that is very considerate of him, given the gargantuan significance of this case. Afterall, legalize language can be quite confusing – by design.
What we do know is that if you do any search engine research on the topics covered, you will not be hard pressed to find copious amounts of information to validate the allegations in the indictment. Nowadays, everything is recorded, and what we say or do will have lasting impacts. Does that mean that we have to live in fear? No, it does not. What it means is that we should strive for being good people and not do intentional harm onto others. However, accountability is still a thing, even if the person is ignorant to the reality they are doing something wrong.
For example, if a person kills another human being because rhetoric became a visceral response to some impressionable person – the person who actually carried out the physical attack. What do I mean by that? It means that some people could unintentionally be catalysts to rally another human being into doing something terrible – if this impressionable human being is convinced that what he/she is doing is the “right thing” under these artificial circumstances. Charlatans have existed through history. And they were always very persuasive. But they have one thing in common, they will conceal the entire picture from their victims. And although the faces had been different throughout history, we still see people become victims of a divisive rhetoric today.
Whatever the reason a person or a group of people perpetrate a premeditated crime, we have to remember that there is normally a motive. Even if the actual person committing the crime is convinced that their actions were dully sanctioned and authorized by the “authority figure” of their choice and devotion. This is exactly what this indictment is all about. Defrauding people and pushing a false narrative that resulted in several high-level crimes to include the violence in Capitol Hill.
This indictment is not just about Trump being Trump… loving or hating his vociferous and often pedantic antics. Some people love that shit. Can’t say in good conscience that I share that sentiment, because to me the Presidency of the United States, regardless of who’s sitting in the Oval Office should be respected by their position. However, respect for who they are as a person must be earned every day. We say in the U.S. Navy that our rank must be earned every day. This is especially true if you are holding any senior position.
Therefore the highest office in the land should be expected to have a much higher degree of decorum. For example, you would not expect to see an Admiral in the U.S. Navy send a tirade of Tweets past midnight mentioning somebody (for example a private citizen) they for whatever reason dislike – or saying something unflattering about that person. And in case you were wondering; no, U.S. Navy Admiral has been Tweeting insults to any person in that fashion. Why? Because that would be a behavior beneath the office of the Admiralty. How should not a higher office be held a higher standard? Or if you disagree, how can it not be held at least to the same standard?
I can go even lower in the food chain to illustrate this point. A Third-Class Petty Officer – who is the most junior Non-Commissioned Officer Rank in the U.S. Navy; would get in a lot of trouble if he or she would have a midnight Twitter tirade against one of his shipmates for a disagreement in a way that embarrasses the U.S. Navy. Especially if this tirade resulted in any sort of violence towards their shipmate. Hope this makes sense when I talk about the decorum expected in a high office.
The Presidency of the United States of America is the most influential position in the world. Like of dislike Trump, he has been no stranger to controversy, and quite a lot of legal action against him. And not only against himself personally, but also a lot of legal action against many of his closer allies when working for him. And yes, many of those closest allies parted ways with Trump… often in very bad terms. So, just think about the trending of these unusual events. Does that make sense to you?
Critical thinking and intellectual honesty
It is ok to like or even love somebody and disagree with their actions. Each person is free to choose heir own path. It is our choice if we follow somebody who is going astray toward the wrong path. Sadly, sometimes those who we admire the most are the ones who are a bad influence in our lives. And even sadder is the fact that we might be reluctant to see that reality because of our blind devotion towards them. And yes, it is traumatic to come to grips with that reality, if that applies to you.
It is not unlikely the time that we have been infatuated with an ex-lover. You know what I am talking about, that person who you wrote love poems until sunrise, and for whom we were head-over-heels for one reason or another. Yet, this person who was the object of your affection, at some point unfortunately ended becoming an “ex” for the very reasons everybody warned about. It possibly took some time until you about finally reached the obvious conclusion of why this person was meant to be an “ex” – for very valid reasons you probably discarded outright when you were under the spell of infatuation. It happens to us all, it is human nature, and it is ok to learn from that experience.
Something very similar happens in politics, or whenever we have any potential bias. I am not even asking you to stop liking Trump, all I am saying is that if there are people who are raising some alarms about him, it is worth looking at what they mean by that in a pragmatic manner. Is it possible that some of those are false alarms? Sure, that is a possibility. However, if you are intellectually honest to realize that you might have been misplacing your devotion, then you will be more likely to understand what somebody is trying to warn you about.
And the same goes for anything in your life. For example, I’ve never rolled down the ladder-wells in the ship. But I have heard and seen people falling, and it looked super unpleasant. Does that mean that I want to fall down the ladder-well to confirm that it is unpleasant? Not at all… but I can understand the experience from those who suffered that unpleasant accident. Hence, I would recommend also other people to be cautious when going up or down those ladder-wells.
Of course that when it comes to politics the situation will be a lot more complex. But there will be tell-tale signs. And identifying those is actually our responsibility as the adults in the room at this point in our lives.
If you are a Trump fan, just read this document (the indictment) very pragmatically. But instead of thinking this case is talking about Trump change the name to anybody whom you don’t particularly like, or even better, someone you very much dislike. If you could unequivocally condone those actions in the indictment even if the person is somebody you do not like, then congratulations – you’re intellectually honest. Though, critical thinking might be skewed because those are very serious criminal allegations. Just saying.
By the time I am able to post this article, I am sure that there is going to be a lot more stuff all over the news about this story. And I will do my best to do a thorough follow up. In the meantime, just like any “Today in America” series in my site, I want to put a timestamp in our contemporary American History. If you’re new to this series, check it out in this site. It will give you a lot of contexts about what we are talking about today. And this indictment for better or for worse has been a very important event in the history of our country. HLC