Where's Waldo?
Donald Trump's Legal Woes
I was born in 1981 (like Beyonce, I remind my daughters when they think that sounds ancient). Where’s Waldo? (or, Where’s Wally? originally and to much of the world)¹ was published in 1987--when I was the perfect age to have it be part of my childhood zeitgeist. Where’s Waldo? launched our searches for the elusive red-and-white-clad time traveler in increasingly complex scenes. Martin Handford, the creator and illustrator, said it would sometimes take eight weeks to draw a two-page scene for Waldo to inhabit. As Waldo developed, he got smaller. In the first book, he was typically about 0.99 square centimeters². By book four, he was clocking in around 0.20 square centimeters. It was harder and harder to find him. There are some stories and recurring characters in the books, and Waldo, of course, but the main character? That’s you, the reader. The whole point is whether you can spot Waldo.³
I’ve been thinking about Waldo as I make More to Say episodes⁴ about Donald Trump’s legal problems⁵. The scenes are increasingly complex. There are more characters. It’s easy to get distracted. Martin Handford’s visual red herrings are no match for golden sneakers, phallic cologne, an affair in Georgia described in testimony that would make Julia Sugarbaker proud. But what are we looking for? Who is the main character?
I’m going to give you a brief summary of where the major cases against Donald Trump stand. As I do, I’d like to imagine that Waldo represents the rule of law.
The Hush Money Criminal Case
Remind me what we’re talking about?
Under New York law, Trump is charged with falsifying business records in order to conceal payments made to an adult film star from voters.
What’s the latest?
Trump’s motions to dismiss this case have been denied⁶, and the case is scheduled to go to trial. Jury selection will begin on March 25.
Where’s Waldo?
Legally, this case involves an intricate dance between state and federal law. I plan to cover this dance in detail on More to Say next week. The most significant rule of law issue here, to me, is federal election law and the transparency that we require around political donations. I don’t know how that will play out on the facts of this particular case. I do know that it’s worth continuing to explore the limits of current election laws so that we can write and enforce better laws in the future.
The Documents Case
Remind me what we’re talking about?
Trump is charged with 37 felonies because he took national security information from the White House that did not belong to him, stored it improperly, refused to return it even though he was repeatedly told to do so, and then did everything--including having the information hidden, lying to investigators, and having other people lie on his behalf--to hold on to it.
What’s the latest?
This case is probably the most open-and-shut of the criminal charges brought against Trump. But it is being overseen by a judge who seems…inexperienced in the most generous reading of the situation. So the wheels of justice feel a little stuck in the mud. Even Trump, who views delay as his greatest weapon, asked for permission to move things along by filing a consolidated brief on all of his pretrial motions. This week, the judge said, no--he must file them one at a time. Additionally, commentators suggest that Judge Cannon has egregiously erred in a recent ruling by denying the government’s motion to keep the identities of potential witnesses under seal. These commentators suggest that the Special Counsel seek to have her removed from the case--a risky proposition.
Where’s Waldo?
Right in front of us! Trump very clearly broke the law by taking and retaining these documents. The evidence about how these documents were stored is compelling and voluminous. So many of the issues related to Trump are hard. Conducting this trial will be hard because of the sensitivity of the information involved, but this case is not a head-scratcher.
The January 6th Case
Remind me what we’re talking about?
Trump is charged with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, defrauding the United States, and working against the right to vote. These charges stem from his efforts to convince voters that the 2020 election was stolen and to remain in power in spite of the results.
What’s the latest?
All eyes are on the Supreme Court. Trump filed a motion to dismiss--saying to the trial court “we don’t need to have a trial; I win.” The trial court denied the motion. Trump appealed to the DC Circuit and lost. He has now asked the Supreme Court to get involved. Many, many briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court (Trump’s, the government’s, and from people who are interested in this case like Project Democracy, the Christian Family Coalition, 22 states, constitutional scholars…send good vibes to the Supreme Court clerks who are wading through all of this paper). There are a bunch of potential outcomes. My personal hope is that the Supreme Court will decide not to do anything--just deny the motion for stay, decline certiorari, and let the trial go forward. The matter is fully briefed, but I can’t tell you when it will be decided. The Supreme Court is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in politics and presents from very wealthy pals.⁷
Where’s Waldo?
So far, I think this case is a shining example of the best of our judicial system. The government is attempting to hold a former executive to account for violating the law in a serious way. The Special Counsel did not, in my opinion, overcharge Trump. He brought the case he believes he can prove. In motion practice, Trump has won some and lost some. The trial judge has acted with urgency and gravity. The DC Circuit did careful analysis and reached a unanimous conclusion on Trump’s “absolute immunity” argument. Let’s hope the Supreme Court is contributive, not destructive.
The Georgia RICO Case
Remind me what we’re talking about?
The state of Georgia has charged Trump and co-defendants with engaging in a pattern of illegal activity to overturn the 2020 election. This case is significant for many reasons, but especially because the US president does not have the power to pardon himself for state law crimes.
What’s the latest?
We have a side show about whether District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from trying the case because of a conflict of interest arising from an affair with an attorney she hired to assist her office in handling the case. That’s a long sentence, and it’s been a big sideshow. My TL;DR: this is a bad look, but it shouldn’t disqualify her. I look forward to the opinion of the judge in this case, who I think is doing a really nice job conducting a sprawling proceeding. The real question is: when’s this thing going to trial? We don’t know yet, but don’t count on it being before November.
Where’s Waldo?
The state of Georgia has interests in the national presidential election, in ensuring that its electoral votes are properly submitted and counted, in protecting the officials and citizens who conduct its elections, in upholding the integrity of its elections. The rule of law is honored by a state standing up and saying “we’re not gonna take it” when an incumbent president uses the bully pulpit to pressure its officials and disrupt the orderly counting of its electoral votes.
New York State Civil Fraud
The best way to get caught up on this one is to listen to Wednesday’s episodes of Pantsuit Politics and More to Say. We have you completely covered!
Where’s Waldo?
The big-picture rule of law principle for me in this case is federalism. The way that Trump and his businesses shamelessly inflated the value of assets might not be a legal problem everywhere. The State of New York decided in the 1950s that it is there, and in our system, New York has that right. As an international financial center, New York’s legislators determined that too many people were polluting the market with fraud, and it wanted to empower the Attorney General and the Courts to clean the air. We’ll see how the trial judge’s attempt to do that holds up on appeal.
But wait! There’s More…
In addition to these cases, we’re waiting on the Supreme Court to issue a ruling in the Colorado ballot disqualification case. Trump is appealing verdicts against him in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuits. He is involved in a host of other civil litigation.
And you have a full life to live! As Beyonce says, you have art to make and love to create. So we’re here for you. Sarah and I so appreciated a comment this week from Ali, who wrote:
One of the things I find the most valuable about both Good Morning and More to Say is the intentional curation of news stories and additional context. I trust that by the time Sarah and Beth discuss a topic, I can be sure that it is an important one. Their curation gives me the peace of mind not to chase headlines -- I know the right stories will come to me in the right time and with the right context.
That’s exactly what we want to provide for you with all of our work, and I hope this quick status report helps accomplish it. You are our main character. We want you to help you find Waldo, no matter how small he is or how messy the scene around him gets.
¹Why did we change Wally to Waldo? Perhaps the answer is “freedom.”
²That’s a reduction from 0.153 square inches to 0.031 square inches in freedom units.
³Here at Pantsuit Politics, we are reeling from Merriam-Webster’s announcement that it’s fine to end sentences with prepositions. We might need to do it liberally for a while.
⁴This link takes you to the collections page of Patreon. If you are a premium member on Patreon, Alise has been meticulously cataloging the many, many episodes we make about Trump’s legal woes so that you can quickly find everything we have on particular matters.
⁵Q: Dear Beth, are you going to be in the newsletter every few weeks with a new format for just updating us on the same old cases? A: Probably. I don’t want to bore you, and I don’t want “Trump” to be my job in the way that “Beach” is Ken’s. But “what’s going on with these cases?” is a FAQ, they are important, they are complicated, and I try my best to bring some organization and clarity for you. So, here we find ourselves again.
⁶https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24428461/trump-trial-response.pdf
⁷And yet, I love it. I can’t quit it. An independent judiciary is foundational to representative democracy. What’s a gal to do?
We love hearing when you are running for office. We hope you’ll join us in rooting for Lori in her Congressional run, and if you are running for office and want to share why you’re running, what office, and how you made the decision to run, we’d love to share your stories here as we approach Election Day.
Good Afternoon,
I'd like to share the unlikely story of my last week, or "How Lori Camp became the Democrat running to represent Indiana's 2nd Congressional District."
I filed to run for U.S. Representative IN-D2 on February 9th, and I wanted to share how it came about because it is quite a weird coincidence that everything came together the way it did.
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction:
Thursday morning (2/8), I woke up, grabbed my phone to text my kiddo good morning, and went to see if there was anything new on Facebook. The first post I saw in my feed was from MadVoters, showing a picture of the Indiana Congressional Districts and some candidate information. I was surprised that my district, D2, had no Democrat challenging the Republican incumbent.
So I commented something like, I can do it, I am a Democrat, and someone commented something like really? I said sure, I'm as normal as you can get, and at least this will give people a choice. (I'm honestly not sure what I posted, I was still kind of dumbstruck that no one was running.)
To make a long story short, I then got an email from MadVoters who reached out to the IN Dems and was put in contact with Brian Smith. I filled out the paperwork Thursday afternoon and met Brian in Nappanee Thursday night. Talked about why I was interested in running, outside of the fact that I was the only one willing, and Brian drove my paperwork to Indianapolis on Friday morning. I was the only Democrat who filed, so here I am, a candidate for IN-D2 congressperson.
It still seems surreal, and I know it is a long shot, this district was gerrymandered when Jackie (Walorski) held the seat, so me winning, well, it might just take a miracle.
Make no mistake though, I am running to win. I am tired of not feeling like I have representation in Washington, D.C., and if elected, I will work my butt off to change that for all of my constituents.
This is going to be such a grassroots effort... I have no "connections," and I have no clout; I am really just a regular person who wants the government to work for all of the regular people, not just the super-wealthy.
I am so excited to be doing this, and I hope if you are reading this, you will be excited to help me win!
To be honest this came about because of what I have read and listened to on the Pantsuit Politics Show and mostly because one of my favorite writers writes, "If you want a better nation, be better citizens." I figured one of the best ways to be a better citizen is to give people a choice between the current Republican incumbent and myself, a Democrat that is pretty much the exact opposite of a MAGA Republican. As I said, I am a normal person, one kiddo in college, with a husband and a dog! I just thought you might be interested to know that your grace-filled conversations helped spur me to run so I might be able to add some civility to the political arena. Thank you for your time.
Lori Camp
This email from SarahJane really impacted our team and thinking about Friday’s episode on Alabama’s IVF ruling, and she was kind enough to let us share her note and experience with all of you.
Dear Sarah, Beth, Alise, and Maggie,
As this ruling from AL has unfolded, I feel the need to speak out with my IVF story. Like many people (1 in 5-6, depending on the source), I was not able to conceive "naturally" when my husband and I wanted a baby. I spent about a year trying fertility drugs, did EIGHT rounds of Intrauterine Insemination (IUI), and was told my best chance for a baby was to do IVF. I did IVF around 12 years ago, and at that time, it was $20k; I'm sure it's much more today.
To do IVF, it isn't a quick and simple "in and out." First, I had to go on the pill for two months to make it easier for the clinic to regulate my cycle. Then, I had to spend about $5k on meds - completely out of pocket because insurance covers none of this. These meds made my ovaries produce lots and lots of extra eggs, and I was monitored regularly with vaginal ultrasounds to check the status of my follicles and if they were mature enough to have a successful fertilization. When my follicles were at the point of maturity, I gave myself a trigger injection in the stomach and prepared myself to do an egg retrieval within the next 24-48 hours.
Egg retrieval day is like a same-day surgery. I was put under and had my follicles removed and, at that point, was put on a different set of meds to make my body a "welcoming host" to my future embryos. Five days later, I was lucky enough to have SIX embryos (this is a miracle, truly) and chose to implant 2. The other four were put in the freezer for the future.
This background is important for the Alabama decision because now, a number of fertility clinics have been forced to put IVF on hold. That means there are Alabama women out there who are in the middle of taking medication to make their body produce a lot of extra eggs, who are now in a whole new version of hell. These meds are not easy on your body at all - they mess with your hormones in every way possible at a time when your mental health is already terrible. Those women may have had to scrap their entire cycle, lost thousands of dollars, and are basically being kicked while they are already down. For the Alabama legislature to not just force women to have babies who don't want them but also prevent those who DO is unfathomable to me.
Then, there are more considerations. Back to my story - I had my 2 fresh embryos implanted and learned a couple of weeks later I was pregnant with one baby girl - so the other embryo didn't take. In Alabama, would this now be a criminal investigation for a woman who has an embryo with full living child rights, but that embryo didn't implant? Would that woman be subjected to scrutiny of how she lived her life, what she ate, how she exercised, etc.? Where will this madness end?
When my husband and I felt ready for another child, we went back to use some of our frozen embryos. I took another round of meds to once again make me a welcoming host (this was MUCH easier than the first round). The day of my implantation was nerve-wracking because we were going to learn how our frozen embryos fared. We learned that 2 of them died and turned brown when they thawed; 1 was marginal, and 1 was pretty good. Nervously and with so many prayers, we implanted the last 2 and hoped for the best. In the end, I ended up with another beautiful daughter. Of my 6 original embryos, I was blessed with my two girls. However, with this new Alabama ruling, I wonder what would happen criminally with the embryos that didn't make it. When the clinic thawed them, would they be liable for wrongful death? That sounds ludicrous, but my guess is they would be in Alabama and that is why IVF treatments have stopped for the time being.
IVF is a miracle. Truly, as someone who has literally been to hell and back to get my sweet daughters, I cannot emphasize this enough. The science, precision, and care I received to have the children I do was worth all of the physical and emotional anguish I experienced. I think every woman should be able to have the freedom to have a child if she wants one, and frankly, women are going to die for losing their battle with mental health over this. Being able to have a baby is a fundamental right, just like choosing not to have a baby is a fundamental right! I hope and pray that there can be some changes to Alabama law, but I have a strong sense that Texas will be the next state to follow their lead, and soon IVF treatments will lead to infertility deserts just like there are abortion care deserts.
I don't know what the answers are here, but I felt compelled to share my story. My two daughters are now 9 and 11 and are the joys of my life. Someday, I will tell them that they are technical fraternal twins, born 2 years apart, but they aren't quite ready for that yet. I hope there will be opportunities to help the women impacted by this Alabama decision find the transportation and/or resources to get the IVF treatments they need. I am looking forward to Sarah and Beth's conversation on this court case on tomorrow's show.
Love to all of you,
SarahJane
Copyright (C) 2024 Pantsuit Politics. All rights reserved.