Skip to main content

The first criminal trial of DJT is underway


Many were despairing of such an event. But jury selection is now underway.

The former President, Donald Trump, is now being tried in a court whose judgment is not subject to any presidential pardon. He is not being tried for insurrection. He is being tried for falsifying business records. But he is on trial -- his odd de facto immunity from any such proceedings is at an end. 

Nothing even remotely like this has happened in our country since 1807, when Aaron Burr went on trial. 

Burr was not a former President, of course. Burr was a former Vice President. Another difference: Burr was tried by a federal court. He could presumably have pardoned himself had he been convicted there and had somehow thereafter been elected President. So ... not an exact likeness to the current situation.  

But let's talk a bit about Burr. He was the guy who inspired the 12th amendment, changing the way vice presidents are selected, largely so that Jefferson could replace him with George Clinton.

Dramatically dumped in that manner by the Democratic-Republicans, despised by Federalists over the death of their leader three years before in an affair that would one day be featured as the climax of a Broadway musical, Burr was arrested for insurrection and treason on February 19, 1807.

Burr was acquitted at that trial -- the gist of it was that after the infamous duel Burr went west, and he seems to done a lot of indiscreet talking and writing about a plot to create a new country for himself, one that would have combined parts of newly-purchased Louisiana with the Mississippi Territory, controlling both banks of the lower Mississippi. The plan never got beyond talk  so it involved none of the "overt acts" that the constitutional definition of treason requires.  On the basis of the absence of such overt acts, Burr was acquitted.  

The alleged insurrectionist plot itself seems largely to have faded from American history education in our public schools. But it could make a great Broadway play, maybe after they close Hamilton. 

I seem to have wandered from the point. Anyway: we might imagine this as the case that might have arisen if Burr had been put on trial, AFTER his apparent efforts at insurrection, NOT for insurrection at all but for an earlier incident in his life.  Let us say he had been tried for dueling. My understanding is that a (successful) participant in a duel was not then treated as a murderer in the laws of New Jersey, though he was guilty of a crime, the duel itself. 

So if Burr had been able to delay the federal trial, I suppose he might have been arrested and put on trial in New Jersey.  And the one trial might have been regarded, sensibly, as a sort of karmic substitute for the other.

Trump might in time be tried for treason/insurrection, if we can keep him from the Oval Office. But to the end of doing so, and despite the less compelling charges, I am very happy this day has come at last! 




Comments

  1. You write that Trump could be tried for treason. I hadn't thought of that. The Constitution defines "treason" in relevant part as "levying War" against the United States. Could a violent insurrection aimed at installing the loser of an election as president be interpreted as a war? But, by that act, he was trying to take over only the executive branch of the government? Is that sufficient? Perhaps. Although treason was not at issue in the Mexican-American War, the U.S. was not trying to take over all of Mexico, but only part of it. A war can have limited aims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question mark after "executive branch of the government" should be a period.

      Delete
    2. One might well contend that Trump's administration aimed at subjugating the US as a sovereign to a new Russian Empire, (illustrated for example by his boot-licking meeting with his Czar in Helsinki), that the violence when it came was a means to that end (it would take a second term for the subjugation to take effect), and that THIS makes the violence a battle in a war. A bit of a stretch. Let's just get him on paying off a porn star and fudging the records.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak