The Trials of Donald Trump, Explained

The Collision takes over.

By , and
44

Donald Trump’s trials represent an unprecedented clash of American politics and law. To make sense of the madness, The Dispatch launched The Collision newsletter, written by Sarah Isgur and Mike Warren. With the ex-president’s multiple cases crawling through the courts, Sarah and Mike (and a spice-addled Jonah) compare the legal arguments of the different trials, break down the possible timelines, and consider the political ramifications of this mess we’re in.

The Agenda:
—SCOTUS hearing Trump’s immunity case
—The lawfare argument
—Majorities can be wrong
—Alvin Bragg’s hush money case
—Different rules for elites
—Dead to rights on obstruction
—Georgia on their mind
—Biden impeachment update

Show Notes:

—The Collision newsletter

—Liam Neeson does improv

By , and
Comments (44)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Bruce Fortelka

    Jonah, I take exception to your Richard Jewell comments that yes he was railroaded but that doesn't mean he should be President of the US. Richard Jewell didn't want to be President, he wanted to be a real paid law enforcement officer and not just a security guard. His railroading tarnished him from ever (I think) getting one of the jobs he truly wanted.

    Collapse
  2. Joe1776

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

    SCOTUS unsurprisingly read the constitution that says *congress* enforces the 14th amendment, and unanimously reversed Colorado ruling.

    Collapse
  3. Gregory.Longo

    I really do appreciate the discussion and listen to each episode the second it drops. However, I find it perplexing that while there's talk of Hunter's misconduct and legal issues, along with Joe's influence peddling, there's a complete lack of discussion regarding Jared and Ivanka's actions. This oversight is particularly striking when Sarah bothsides Biden at the 1:03 mark. If the intention is critically analyzing the Biden's, thats fine. Yet, bothsidesing Biden while ignoring the Kushners is puzzling. This type of bias by omission is something I don't expect here.

    Collapse
  4. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  5. Avatar photo
    Matt Stokes

    Sarah's proceduralism is a well-taken point, but funny how it always seems to rebound to Trump's benefit. And when Trump walks to reelection, it will be only the voters fault, but not the fault of every single political institution that could have held him accountable?

    Collapse
    1. BenP

      I think her argument is that pointing the finger at SCOTUS at this late hour is unreasonable. I'll bet she'd be happy to blame Garland and all the prosecutors who took their time as well. And, of course, Mitch McConnell.

      Collapse
  6. Deanjens

    I wonder whether you've given thought to doing one of these sober. I'm not saying it would be as good, but just as an experiment.

    If you want another 1960s literary reference related to lawfare, there's a point early in Lord of the Flies where one of the characters suggests, "We need to make some rules," and another character says, "Yes, that way we can punish people." My estimate of the number of real people who are like that second character has gone up in the last decade.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Patterico

    I have not listened to this yet, but based on the comments, I can tell that when I do, I am going to end up highly annoyed.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Patterico

      I may deal with it by playing my own drinking game:

      Drink when someone says Trump is not above the law but he is not below the law

      Drink when Thomas More and a Man for All Seasons is invoked

      Drink when it is falsely claimed that Bragg's prosecution is based on a charge DOJ failed to bring

      Drink when it is said that DOJ cannot start a case against Trump after Labor Day despite the fact that DOJ just represented in court yesterday that they can

      Drink when a partisan argument is made that Trump is being victimized

      I have a feeling I am going to end up going to the hospital with alcohol poisoning.

      Collapse
      1. DRJ

        Great drinking game! I share your feeling that it would be a bad outcome.

        But I've given up on The Dispatch so this is my last time here.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Patterico

          I'm sad to see you go but listening to the podcast I understand your frustration. In discussing the Bragg case, Isgur repeats for something like the third time in the past week a set of propositions that she ought to know are false, and that I have explained are false in comments at the Dispatch and in various Substack articles. I am starting to get frustrated, as you obviously were, DRJ.

          For instance, Isgur says of the Bragg case:

          “The only other crime they could attach to it was a federal crime that the Department of Justice decided not to prosecute Trump for.”

          That is flatly untrue.

          I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Bragg has cited other crimes. In the decision issued by the trial judge denying Trump's motion to dismiss -- which it is painfully obvious that Isgur has not read, but which she really should read if she is going to keep commenting on the Bragg case -- the judge wrote what the theories were that were offered by the prosecution:

          "The four theories being violations of the: (1) Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA"); (2) N.Y. Election Law § 17-152; (3) Tax Law §§ 1801(a)(3). 1802: and (4) Defendant's intent to violate PL §§ 175.05 and 175.10 by intending to commit or conceal the falsification of other business records."

          He upheld the first three of these. Only that first is the federal campaign finance law to which she refers. I have made this point again and again and Isgur repeatedly ignores it and keeps feeding the same false information to Dispatch readers.

          She says she still does not think a state prosecutor can "bootstrap" a federal law into a felony -- also something that the trial judge addressed in his decision, and guess what? He said you can.

          She also says that the reason DOJ did not charge Trump is because it's not a federal crime. Has she really forgotten that DOJ charged Michael Cohen and got a conviction based on the same theory? I am just amazed that she would make this statement, because she has to know this was not the reason DOJ did not charge Trump. Otherwise they would not have charged Cohen either.

          I will probably once again write up a Substack article about this and once again be ignored. But my disappointment and amazement grow and grow.

          Collapse
          1. DRJ

            I will miss informative comments like this by Patterico.

            Collapse
  8. Acre00

    I'm really glad Steve sat this one out. I really value his input on a lot of topics, but when it comes to Trump he tends to go off the rails

    Collapse
  9. Todd

    A periodic The Collision podcast would be a fine addition to the stable. Expanding on some of the more nuanced topics within the newsletter with Sarah, Michael, and Jonah would be illuminating.

    When one has to rewind the podcast a few times to re-hear what one could not imagine hearing on a Dispatch podcast, one is engaged in the content.

    I appreciate you three.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      Perhaps the next one could feature someone who actually practiced as a lawyer?

      Collapse
      1. Todd

        Sure. Don’t you think David French is a permanent guest on too many Dispatch podcasts already? I wouldn’t mind, but the NYT has to be scratching their head.

        Collapse
  10. Thrhodes

    Jonah's "hosting" of this episode was literally like a monkey that escapes from the cocaine study and I loved it. The back and forth repartees was enjoyable.

    Collapse
Load More