Voters headed to the polls on Monday in the climax of India's marathon election, with frontrunner Narendra Modi seeking a crowning victory in the holy city of Varanasi for his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party. Modi is standing in the famed pilgrimage…
Donald Trump and his allies insist his indictment will only help his 2024 election chances, but two people who've known him for years think he's humiliated to finally face criminal charges.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who knew Trump long before he entered politics, said his indictment on charges related to the hush money payoff to porn actress Stormy Daniels have already dented the former president's confidence.
"Politics aside this is something unfolding for 50 years," Scarborough said. "Donald Trump has always been one step ahead of whether it is prosecutors or bankruptcy laws or contract disputes always, always fighting, always trying to get out of the trap always somehow seeming to be above the law ... This is something that he has been skating on thin ice for many, many years now."
Sharpton agreed that Trump wouldn't like the feeling that the ice had cracked underneath him.
RELATED: Former Trump employees secretly cheering 'wonderful news' of his indictment: Maggie Haberman
"Donald Trump's heroes were Roy Cohn, a lawyer that was the defense attorney for mobsters," Sharpton said. "He loved to play the game of 'I can get away with this and that,' which is why I think people underestimate when they say that the New York case may be the weakest legal case, and we don't know that because we don't know what the legal case is yet until we see the indictment unsealed, because there could be more there than Stormy Daniels."
"We'll see, but what I think they don't know is this is the most humiliating for Donald Trump because he is going to be brought in New York where he played the outsider and... he will be hauled into court... and be arraigned, saying we told you he was nothing but a crook. He was a scam artist would rather be arraigned anywhere than Lower Manhattan and discredited forever. This is going to be the ultimate humiliation for the guy that played the rat running from the whatever all of a sudden he gets caught, and he gets caught where it is most humiliating for him."
Watch the video below or at this link.
03 31 2023 08 17 24 youtu.be
Republicans are already reacting to former President Donald Trump's indictment by a Manhattan grand jury — and their first instinct is to use "white nationalist propaganda" to try to inflame tensions around it, wrote Zeeshan Aleem for MSNBC on Friday.
One of the best examples of this, he wrote, was Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH).
"Shortly after news of the indictment emerged, [Vance] tweeted: 'A week ago a video circulated of a lunatic harassing a family on a New York subway. He hurled racial slurs (the family was white) and threatened them. Alvin Bragg thinks that man should walk free and Donald Trump should go to jail for a fake misdemeanor. It’s despicable,'" wrote Aleem. "The story he wants to tell is that white civilization is under attack and that a Black man is helping lead the movement. It’s unclear what video Vance is referring to or whether he’s even talking about somebody who was arrested — and presumably many of Vance’s hundreds of thousands of followers won’t know, either — but the intended message is clear: This Black prosecutor is letting people of color get away with attacking white people — and trying to take down our most important avatar, Donald Trump."
This is not unique — Trump himself has been trying to stir up racial resentment against Bragg for weeks, even calling him a "racist" and suggesting he is only going after Trump because he hates white people. He has made similar attacks on other Black officials, going after New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County, Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis.
DON'T MISS: 'Almost crying' Lindsey Graham ridiculed for Trump indictment meltdown
Trump's race-baiting goes back years; he infamously claimed during his 2016 presidential campaign that Gonzalo Curiel, a judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit, couldn't judge him fairly because he was "Mexican" and "I'm building a wall."
"Vance is only the latest Republican to try to frame New York’s criminal justice system as easy on criminals (who are always presumed to be people of color in this narrative) and eager to take down someone it perceives as a political opponent," wrote Aleem. "Never mind that New York doesn’t have a high crime rate by national standards, has long had a draconian criminal justice system and is being run by a tough-on-crime former cop. And never mind that Vance has no way of knowing what legal evidence is being marshaled to charge Trump with a 'fake' crime. The facts are beside the point."
Meanwhile, Trump and other Republicans like Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) have also taken to calling Bragg "Soros-backed" or a "Soros D.A." — a reference to Hungarian-born Jewish billionaire philanthropist and Holocaust survivor George Soros, who often contributes to progressive and government-transparency causes and is the subject of frequent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
"The right could have suggested that corruption is to blame for the Trump indictment without using racist and antisemitic subtexts to make its point," wrote Aleem. "Some on the right did. But many right-wing nationalists capitalized on it as yet another opportunity to reduce the world to a series of clashes between racial in-groups and out-groups, and provoke fears about what might happen if white America doesn’t snuff out an emerging Black and Jewish threat."
In the United States' lower federal courts, judges are subject to an official Code of Judicial Conduct. But there is no such code for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose image has suffered badly in 2022 and 2023.
From the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to reports that far-right GOP activist Ginni Thomas (Justice Clarence Thomas' wife) pushed for the 2020 presidential election results to be overturned, the High Court has been inundated with negative publicity. The Court's approval ratings, according to polls, have plummeted to historic lows.
Moreover, one-third of the justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by a former president who was indicted by a grand jury on March 30 in connection with a criminal investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr. Former President Donald Trump, in addition to Bragg's probe, is facing multiple criminal investigations — including two by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and special counsel Jack Smith and one by Fulton County, Georgia DA Fani Willis.
READ MORE: Political experts break down the Supreme Court’s crisis of legitimacy
Some critics of the Roberts Court are calling for the justices to be subject to an official ethics code just as lower federal court justices are. Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who now lectures at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, discussed that possibility in an interview with the Harvard Gazette published on March 29.
Asked why the High Court "lacks a code of ethics," Gertner replied, "The Supreme Court justices claim to be bound by the code of conduct that applies to federal judges. The key issue is that there is no enforcement mechanism. That is to say, if I, as a district court judge, ran afoul of the code of conduct, there would have been a mechanism to report that to the court above me. There would have been a mechanism to investigate, and there would have been arguably a mechanism for disciplinary proceeding. Because there is no one above the Supreme Court, so the argument goes, there is no enforcer."
Chief Justice John Roberts has said that the U.S. Supreme Court voluntarily follows the Code of Judicial Conduct. But according to Gertner, there is no official "enforcement mechanism."
Gertner told the Harvard Gazette, "We have no idea whether the justices are following it. The Judicial Code of Conduct is, to some degree — even with lower court judges — a self-regulating system. I file a disclosure statement, and I am trusted by my peers to be accurate in it. But there's no automatic enforcement; no one is checking it when it is submitted. Should it come out that I haven't put something on it, there is an enforcement mechanism, and there is a complaint that could be filed. No one is suggesting with the Supreme Court that there'll be monitors in the hall to make sure that they're following the Code of Conduct. All that people are suggesting is that when they follow the Code or don't follow the Code, there can be an enforcement mechanism."
READ MORE: Former Jimmy Carter official tears apart 'sham' argument against Supreme Court code of conduct
The former federal judge argues that the lack of an official ethics code is damaging the Supreme Court's reputation and credibility.
Gertner told the Gazette, "Without a shadow of a doubt, the Supreme Court should have an enforceable ethics code. It is simply a scandal that they do not. What we've seen over the past numbers of years is the result of that scandal…. I was married to the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and we spent 17 years working our tails off to make sure that he never came near any of my cases. And now we hear that.… some of (Ginni Thomas') text messages may have been in the body of documents that were at issue in a case before the Supreme Court…. If the institution doesn't have an enforceable way of policing itself, then it is not to be trusted."
Read the Harvard Gazette's full interview with Nancy Gertner at this link.
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
