Trump And Biden: Two Political Rorschach Tests

We Are At Peak Politics Of Personality

When even veteran Democrat strategist Donna Brazile calls Trump “a movement”, there is no room even for pretense that 2024 will be an ordinary election.

Brazile said, “I’m old enough to say this. I’ve seen two movements outside of the Social Justice movements in my life on the political side. One was the Reagan movement. Reagan had a hold on his base. The country at large, they saw him as someone who was willing to stand up for American values, whatever that might have been. Now I thought it was reactionary. The other movement I saw was Barack Obama, hope and change. That galvanized the American people.”

She added, “I’ve never seen anything like this with Donald Trump. I mean, what doesn’t kill you make you stronger. I mean, being indicted, that’s making him stronger, raising $10 million using an ugly mug shot to raise money. This is a movement, and anyone who thinks that you can apply the old political rules to try to defeat this candidate based on he’s scary, he’s ugly, whatever you might want to call him, this is a movement. We have to respect the fact it’s a movement.”

Even the Democrats have come to recognize that November 2024 is not just a quadrennial Presidential election, but a referendum on what manner of man gets to sit in the Oval Office. Will it be an archenemy of the Deep State, like Donald Trump? Will it be a casually venal and vicious corruptocrat, like Joe Biden?

Yet even as Democrat stalwarts concede the gathering political energy around Donald Trump, that Trump also stands indicted by the Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney frames the Trump “movement” in decidedly stark and disquieting terms: The contest is one of legitimacy, pitting Trump against “The Deep State”, and it is a contest that makes even notionally routine proceedings against Donald Trump inherently political and therefore suspect.

Thus we must look with skepticism on U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision to schedule Donald Trump’s federal trial on charges he fraudulently attempted to overturn the 2020 election results for March 4, 2024—the day before the “Super Tuesday” primaries.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rebuffed claims by Trump’s attorneys that an April 2026 trial date was necessary to account for the huge volume of evidence they say they are reviewing and to prepare for what they contend is a novel and unprecedented prosecution. But she agreed to postpone the trial slightly beyond the January 2024 date proposed by special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution team.

“The public has a right to a prompt and efficient resolution of this matter,” Chutkan said.

If the current date holds, it would represent a setback to Trump’s efforts to push the case back until well after the 2024 presidential election, a contest in which he’s the early front-runner for the Republican nomination. The March 2024 date would also guarantee a blockbuster trial in the nation’s capitol in the heat of the GOP presidential nominating calendar, likely forcing Trump to juggle campaign and courtroom appearances, and it would come the day before Super Tuesday — a crucial voting day when the largest number of delegates are up for grabs.

“I want to note here that setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on the defendant’s personal or professional obligations,” Chutkan said.

Judge Chutkan’s seemingly pious rationalization that a trial date should not depend on a defendant’s “obligations” overlooks one very obvious reality: an election campaign—even a primary election campaign—is no mere “obligation” for Donald Trump, but is also a matter of debate and ultimately of choice for the voters. As much as Judge Chutkan wants to present the trial as being politically neutral, that it is occuring at all during the middle of an election cycle makes the trial unavoidably politically charged. By picking the day before Super Tuesday to start the trial, Judge Chutkan, far from keeping the trial politically neutral, is making the trial the only political question of interest.

Even New York Times columnist and erstwhile conservative David Brooks can see the political conflicts and fundamental iniquities in Judge Chutkan’s choice of trial date.

Brooks said, “I have a real problem with the way they have scheduled the pre-Super Tuesday. I understand that the people in the judicial system don’t want to be political, but to be completely oblivious to politics and the effects of their actions, seems to me, somewhat irresponsible. If it’s really — if it really do — does get held that day, then Trump will be under attack from the establishment the day before Super Tuesday. It will be impossible for any other Republican candidate to get some traction in that circumstance. And so, all these indictments have helped Trump. And so, you’ve got to think, okay, you do the indictments, I get it. He deserves to be indicted. But are you aware of what’s about to happen because of those indictments? And that’s one thing. It’s even worse to do it — scheduling. A lot of Americans are going to say, he allegedly did these things a bunch of years ago, they’ve politicized it, and then they schedule it right at Super Tuesday? They’re trying to destroy our man. We’ll rally around.”

That the indictment itself appears to be a political hit job by the Deep State against Donald Trump make the trial date selection seem even more political—and thus even less in line with Donald Trump’s Constitutional rights to a fair trial.

Smith Indicts Trump For Doubting The Deep State

That political considerations are playing a role in the persecution prosecution of Donald Trump is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from revelations that members of Jack Smith’s team met with White House counsel staff shortly before Trump was indicted in June.

The White House counsel’s office met with a top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before he brought charges against former President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents — raising serious concerns about coordinated legal efforts aimed at President Biden’s likely opponent in 2024.

Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel’s office, White House visitor logs show.

They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office.

Even nominally non-partisan legal observers are raising a few eyebrows at this meeting.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the March meeting was particularly troublesome and “raises obvious concerns about visits to the White House after [Bratt] began his work with the special counsel.”

“There is no reason why the Justice Department should not be able to confirm whether this meeting was related to the ongoing investigation or concerns some other matter,” he said.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said Bratt was at the White House for a “case-related interview” but declined to comment further.

The FBI declined to comment.

Exactly what “case-related” matters pertaining to Donald Trump would be arising in the White House Counsel’s office just before Trump was indicted?

Highlighting the political implications of this meeting—and once again bookending Donald Trump’s legal woes—comes the equally disturbing revelations that the Department of Justice seemingly colluded with Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to mislead Congress regarding the state of Weiss’ investigation of Hunter Biden.

Emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit and shared exclusively with The Federalist establish that on multiple occasions, the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to respond to congressional inquiries related to the Hunter Biden investigation.

This revelation raises more questions about the June 7, 2023, letter dispatched to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan under Weiss’s signature line, in which the Delaware U.S. attorney claimed he had “ultimate authority” over charging decisions related to Hunter Biden. It also suggests Weiss and the DOJ may have conspired to mislead Congress.

In both cases we see the presence of actors who should not be involved. In both cases we are left to wonder what manner of influence has been brought to bear—either exerting pressure to indict (in the case against Donald Trump) or not (in the case of Hunter Biden).

Thus we are left with what is notionally a criminal proceeding (actually several proceedings) against Donald Trump yet has all the appearance of a running political campaign ad against Donald Trump.

Nor is there any doubt that the criminal proceedings against Trump offer political fodder for other candidates. GOP hopeful Chris Christie laid those doubts to rest when his Super PAC released an ad in New Hampshire using Donald Trump’s mugshot from the Georgia indictments.

Today, Tell It Like It Is PAC released its second television ad of the 2024 presidential election. Entitled “Winning Again,” the :30 second spot is part of a $400,000 media buy that will air statewide on broadcast and cable in New Hampshire and across digital platforms.

The ad contrasts the “drama, distraction and lies” around former President Trump with Governor Christie’s conservative record of success in one of the bluest states in the nation.

One could argue that such political turnabout is only fair play, given that Donald Trump’s own campaign used his Georgia mugshot in a fundraising campaign shortly after it was taken (and released).

The former president’ re-election campaign was quick to appropriate the photo to hawk its own merchandise, announcing a line of mugshot t-shirts just hours after the picture was taken at the Fulton County Jail last week.

With the political dimensions of Trump’s indictments plain for all to see, it comes as no surprise that polls are showing a majority of voters believe Dementia Joe had a role in Jack Smith’s decisions to seek indictments against Donald Trump.

The poll asked respondents, “And how much of a role would you say President Joe Biden has played in the indictments of former President Donald Trump?”

Sixty percent said Biden had a role in the indictments, while just 29 percent said he had no role. Eleven percent did not know.

Among those who said Biden had a role, thirty-nine percent said it was a “major” role. Twenty-one percent said it was a minor role.

The percentage McLaughlin and Associates found who believe politics have played a role in Trump’s indictments is even higher.

McLaughlin also found a clear plurality who believe the purpose of the indictments is to prevent Donald Trump from running for President.

A growing majority of voters are prepared to believe that the indictments represent a two-tiered system of justice, with Donald Trump getting treated one way and Hunter Biden another.

While McLaughlin & Associates are but one polling organization, and we have only the comparative results of two polls, we must acknowledge also that these poll results are in line with Trump’s seemingly impervious popularity in the GOP primary contest, according to multiple other polling organizations.

Morning Consult has not registered any significant change in Trump’s popularity as a result of any of the indictments.

Quinnipiac’s polls indicate the indictments have actually helped Donald Trump become even more popular among GOP voters.

Only YouGov is showing any significant erosion of Donald Trump’s popularity—but still show him commanding more than half of GOP voters’ loyalty.

It is worth noting that even the YouGov polling does not show any other GOP candidate gaining additional traction as a result of Trump’s indictments. If the Democrats believed the indictments alone would derail the “Trump Train”, they appear to have grievously miscalculated.

Regardless of what the facts and the laws may be in the particular Trump indictments, the court of public opinion—the same court which renders judgment on political candidates come election time—has already rendered one verdict on Donald Trump: he is still a viable political candidate and still the GOP odds-on favorite for the nomination.

While Trump is the only candidate under indictment, the ongoing saga of the Hunter Biden investigation may provide yet another bookend: Dementia Joe may be facing an impeachment inquiry and possible trial over the apparent political manipulations and interventions in that case.

“Each step we take contradicts what the Bidens had said before,” McCarthy told Fox News on Sunday. “There’s a lot of questions still. And to be able to get the answers to these questions, you would need an impeachment inquiry to empower Congress, Republicans, and Democrats to be able to get the answers that the American people deserve to know.”

This comes on top of recent revelations that the President used a variety of email aliases while Vice President that potentially concealed his involvement in Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China.

The email to Joe Biden’s alias account contained an attachment that House investigators last Thursday requested the National Archives disclose to Congress. Investigators are also interested to know why Hunter Biden was cc’d on the email concerning Ukraine.

As Professor Turley has observed, an impeachment inquiry would override any action by either former President Obama or Dementia Joe to prevent Congressional investigators from viewing the aliased emails.

That brings us to the confrontation with NARA. The agency could rely on the PRA statute to enforce the refusal of Biden and Obama to allow Congress to review the evidence. Biden actually is supposed to be consulted twice under the law: as the former vice president and as the current president. Both Joe Bidens are likely to have the same negative reaction to exposing his emails.

However, special access to presidential records is expressly allowed under the PRA “to…Congress” and “to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee…if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available.” A refusal would deny Congress critical evidence into a corruption scandal and also a possible impeachment inquiry.

The added resistance to the review of the emails only adds to an already strong case for an impeachment inquiry. Such an inquiry does not mean that impeachment is inevitable. Rather, there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into whether the Bidens were selling the illusion or the reality of influence. By acting under its impeachment authority, the power of Congress would be at its apex in forcing these disclosures and finding answers on the alleged corrupt practices.

Professor Turley has also expressed considerable concern over apparent improprieties in how the Department of Justice has handled both the Hunter Biden investigation overall and in particular the recent appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel for that investigation.

House Republicans had previously demanded that Weiss and his team answer questions about the investigation and the plea bargain. And an appearance before a House committee was planned when Garland suddenly preempted that by doing what many of us have demanded for years: He appointed a special counsel. To the amazement of many, though, he appointed the one prosecutor who should have been categorically excluded — David Weiss.

Section 600.3 of the DOJ’s code on special counsels requires an appointment from outside the Justice Department, for obvious reasons. While another prior special counsel, John Durham, also came from within the Justice Department, Durham was retiring from the department at the time of his appointment. Not only did Garland have to ignore his own regulations to appoint Weiss but he also had to ignore the main qualification: The appointed outside counsel should be someone with “a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making.”

Weiss could well have a legitimate defense to Republican complaints that he ran a fixed investigation into Hunter or accusations that he made false statements to his own team. However, he clearly remains under suspicion by many people. That is reflected in an ABC News/Ipsos poll in which almost half of Americans lack trust that the DOJ will conduct the Hunter Biden investigation in a “fair and nonpartisan manner.”

Regardless of what the corporate media reports for its narratives on Hunter Biden, the public has already concluded that politics are shielding Hunter Biden while targeting Donald Trump, and these recent reveals are doing nothing to dispel that notion.

As I have observed previously, Garland’s eleventh-hour appointment of Weiss as Special Counsel was in essence an admission that a Special Counsel had always been necessary.

Hunter Biden's Case Gets A Special Counsel? Or More "Special Treatment"?

Garland’s own ham-handed handling of a criminal investigation into the President’s son may prove to be the final straw leading the House pushing the President into an impeachment at the same time Donald Trump is being pushed into criminal proceedings. Coming so soon after the disclosure of the email aliases, the misbegotten Special Counsel appointment to some is a tacit admission by the Attorney General the Department of Justice will shield Hunter Biden from prosecution at every turn, meaning an impeachment inquiry is the only remedy left to confront and address the Biden family’s corruption and criminality.

If Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden now, and if they take the time to fight through the likely roadblocks Biden’s lawyers will erect, then the inquiry itself and decision on voting articles of impeachment would be coming sometime in the middle of next year, which could put an impeachment trial in the Senate at about the same time frame as Trump’s trial in federal court.

The 2024 election would then be a trial by jury for both sides, and only then a trial by ballot box.

Even if by some legal chicanery Trump should be prevented from appearing on the ballot in the 2024 election, the broad and deep-seated belief already embedded in the electorate that the legal cases against Trump are purely political theater will, in all probability, merely see confirmation in that outcome. His trials—which likely will not be concluded before the 2024 election—will continue to be a primary topic of debate in both parties at least through the general election.

Similarly, the President’s own impeachment will become the other primary topic of debate in both parties right up until next November. The certainty among Democrats and the corporate media that any such impeachment is little more than political grandstanding will be opposed by the equally fervid belief within the broader electorate that the Biden family as a whole is more venally and viciously corrupt than even the Clintons.

Yet for all the vehemence and the vitriol, the focus in the media, among other politicians, and among the electorate, is on Trump and Biden as political personalities rather than leaders with agendas. This is how we get Congressman Schiff and others threatening to use the 14th Amendment to bar Donald Trump from the ballot. This is how we get media reports focusing on Joe Biden's age.

The legal and impeachment woes facing both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have by the election been turned into political Rorschach tests, with each one revealing how the electorate views both of these likely opponents in next year’s election. Before the first primary vote is cast on either side, the Presidential election of 2024 has already become the pinnacle of the politics of personality, rather than the politics of policy. This is not the first election where personality dominated over policy, but it is clearly now an election where personality has completely crowded out policy.

Both sides will accuse the other of being fascist, of bigotry and prejudice, and always of irredeemable corruption and even treason. Both sides will dwell in the negative attack ad.

Neither side will be persuaded by an actual verdict running contrary to their established position. Neither side will be persuaded by arguments of policy.

With Donald Trump and Joe Biden as their respective parties' probable stand bearers for 2024, the question will simply be does the American electorate want a President like Donald Trump, or a President like Joe Biden? No other considerations—like stances on various issues—are likely to be relevant.