ChrisWeigant.com

The Court Of Public Opinion

[ Posted Wednesday, March 22nd, 2023 – 16:16 UTC ]

There's a recurring theme in both American fiction and actual American history, of playing to the crowd in legal situations. And, at times, it can actually work wonders. Trying a criminal case "in the court of public opinion" can make its own mark on history -- no matter the outcome of the actual court case. Think: the Scopes Monkey Trial. Or John Brown. In both cases, the public eventually wound up on the side that actually lost the case in court (Scopes lost, and John Brown's body wound up "a-mouldering in the grave" after he was executed).

Unsurprisingly, this theme has been reflected many times in popular culture. Three movies sprang immediately to my mind, when considering the subject. The first is graphically violent and brutally portrays how even a pair of vicious serial killers can use the media's appetite for this theme to great effect: Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. The second is a lot more lighthearted and uses musical numbers to create its own condemnation (or celebration?) of the power of the media to warp a court case beyond all recognition: Chicago. And the third one is my personal favorite of the three, because it is either a total spoof or an absolute farce (take your pick), which as a bonus also features a cameo from Patty Hearst: Serial Mom, from director John Waters.

All three of these movies are similar in their theme, though -- the ultimate resolution of the case is often influenced greatly by what the media and the resulting public opinion have to say about it. There's even a whole new universe of true-crime podcasts dedicated to reviewing old cases, for the specific purpose of changing public opinion about them. In at least one prominent case (that of Adnan Syed), a wrongly-convicted prisoner has even been freed by these efforts.

Of course, there is a reason why I decided to write about this today, since we are at the dawn of what could possibly be one of the biggest examples in American history of using the force of "the court of public opinion" to an accused criminal's advantage. If Donald Trump is indicted by a New York grand jury -- and if he is further indicted by either a Georgia grand jury or the federal government for other possible crimes -- then we are going to see the first ex-president attempt to sway the public into believing his own particular version of events, no matter how farfetched they may be. And you've got to admit, Trump is a master at pulling the wool over people's eyes when it comes to this sort of thing -- which has so far allowed him to largely escape any serious consequences for his own actions in life.

Everyone admits this reality, and the current argument among the political punditocracy is whether being indicted will hurt or actually help Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination for president. The corollary question of whether it will help or hurt him win the general election is usually also included, but not always (since the primaries will be first, the question of his chances in them are more immediate).

At this point I really couldn't say either way, since the Republican electorate has become such a nearly-impenetrable thicket of conspiratorial thinking. Trump has primed a goodly number of Republican voters to believe pretty much anything he says about anything -- no matter any concrete evidence to the contrary -- so even if he is subject to multiple criminal trials, there's a portion of the country that will believe he is innocent of everything just because he says so.

How many Republicans will actually vote for Trump, when it comes time to do so? It's tough to say, especially seeing as how he hasn't even been indicted once yet (and absolutely anything could happen between now and primary season), but the answer might just turn out to be: "enough to give him the nomination." As I said, Trump is a master of media manipulation. And his followers are already well-primed to fully believe him over pretty much anything or anyone else.

Or the opposite could happen as well. Even Republican voters who buy into Trump's eternal victimhood schtick may be so tired of his political baggage and antics that they are willing to bet on another horse -- one they think might actually have a better chance of winning the White House. It could easily go either way, which is why the pundits are having so much fun kicking the subject around.

Of the fictional examples I used, one of them (Natural Born Killers) doesn't even concern itself with any actual trial, it is purely about the manipulation of the media and the public to frame a bloody-minded couple's killing spree as almost the resurrection of Bonnie and Clyde. But in the other two, the quite-obviously-guilty defendants successfully manipulate public opinion all the way into the jury box, where they win acquittal. Both are comedies, as their storylines are played mostly for laughs (dark laughs, but laughs nonetheless). Both are funny precisely because they are so uncomfortably close to the reality of some actual court cases.

Will Donald Trump weasel his way out of conviction by an endless barrage of "Witch-hunt!" cries? It certainly worked well enough for him in both of his impeachments, but those "trials" were always going to be political in the first place, being held in a Senate with enough members of his own party to block conviction. For any indictments that may be coming, though, he'll be tried in front of a real jury. And that's a whole different ballgame.

I have no doubt that some Republican voters will go to their graves believing that Trump's clam of being the "most persecuted president in all of American history" is the God's honest truth and that he couldn't possibly have done any of the things he has been accused of. I know this will be a fact no matter what any jury has to say about it or what evidence is presented. Trumpism is closer to a religious cult full of brainwashed followers than it is to any sort of normal political movement, after all.

Trump has already begun his first fusillade of attack in the battle that will be waged over his fate in the court of public opinion. And even if convicted in multiple jurisdictions and imprisoned, I fully believe that none of it is going to stop his presidential campaign. There is no requirement for a presidential candidate to have a squeaky-clean legal record, and not even one that bars a person currently residing in jail from running (which has happened at least twice in American history: Eugene Debs and Lyndon LaRouche). The only thing which could derail the Trump campaign train is if he is actually convicted of crimes from the January 6th insurrection -- and then the 14th Amendment is utilized to bar him from running for any political office in America. This is probably a longshot, since all of that would have to happen in record time for it to influence the 2024 election.

Having a former president -- much less one who is running for nonsequential re-election -- criminally charged and tried in a court of law is a unique experience for America. The closest we've ever come to this previously would be either Richard Nixon getting pardoned by President Gerald Ford or Aaron Burr being tried for treason at the Supreme Court after an order for his arrest was issued by President Thomas Jefferson (Burr, like Trump, was a private citizen at the time, since this all happened after he had served as vice president). That's not a lot of precedent, but even if there were any more such instances I have no doubt that any indictment and subsequent trial of Trump will be completely unprecedented in any number of ways.

The first of which we're already seeing. It comes as no surprise because it is Trump's go-to standard operating procedure: counterattack, viciously. As viciously as possible. As loudly as possible. On any grounds that pop into Trump's head at any time -- he knows if he throws enough of it at the wall, eventually something is bound to stick with the public. As with his impeachments and as with all the other myriad times he's been in (civil) court, Trump knows there will be two battles, the one in the actual courtroom and the one in the court of public opinion. Which means this is going to likely be a long and very bumpy ride.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

8 Comments on “The Court Of Public Opinion”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    You make a very depressing case.

    Would you like to speculate on how the newly elected President Trump would be able to take office and run the federal government from federal prison? Or could he pardon himself once he was sworn in?

    Or - wait for it - could departing President Biden direct the federal bureau of prisons not to allow the prisoner to leave the prison for inauguration, nor to allow visitors to meet the president-elect inside the prison visiting room for the purpose of swearing him in, on grounds of his being a danger to the Republic having already tried once to overthrow the government.

    Without being sworn in, the president-elect could not change Biden's order; his newly elected vice-president would take office as acting president, and could then decide that he or she liked the job, and that the president-elect should continue serving his term.

    That would kind of be poetic justice for January 6!

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Will Donald Trump weasel his way out of conviction by an endless barrage of "Witch-hunt!" cries?

    Did Trump Organization companies weasel their way out of conviction by an endless barrage of cries of "witch hunt" and "politically motivated" emanating from that same Orange Blowhole?

    Nope! Guilty on all 17 counts of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    The only thing which could derail the Trump campaign train is if he is actually convicted of crimes from the January 6th insurrection -- and then the 14th Amendment is utilized to bar him from running for any political office in America.

    Now you've really gone and done it... totally underestimating death and taxes. :)

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Trump is still my favorite on the GQP side.

    But even if being indicted does gin up his base the 81 million people that voted for Joe are guaranteed to return next year to vote against him.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Having a former president -- much less one who is running for nonsequential re-election -- criminally charged and tried in a court of law is a unique experience for America.

    FUN FACT: In 1872, sitting President Grant was arrested at the corner of 13th and M streets in Washington, D.C. for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage (misdemeanor). The arresting officer took the POTUS to the police station where he paid a $20 bond. The next day he failed to appear at trial and forfeited his money.

    Let no guilty man escape if it can be avoided. Be specially vigilant - or instruct those engaged in the prosecution of fraud to be - against all who insinuate that they have high influence to protect - or to protect them. No personal consideration should stand in the way of performing a public duty.

    ~ Ulysses S. Grant

    https://www.grantcottage.org/blog/2018/5/18/the-thin-blue-line

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    1

    Would you like to speculate on how the newly elected President Trump would be able to take office and run the federal government from federal prison? Or could he pardon himself once he was sworn in?

    Oh, this one is easy. Since the GOP maintains fiercely that Trump et alia have done nothing wrong by having certificates of fake electors submitted to NARA while simultaneously attempting to stop Congress from performing its constitutional mandate via his own Vice President while also simultaneously personally phoning multiple representatives of states and aiding and abetting in attempts to have the will of the voters overturned, then they'll obviously have no problem when Vice President Harris actually brings that Trumpian plan to fruition. Biden will claim victory regardless the outcome of the Electoral College, and Harris will accept the certificates of fake electors from multiple states.

    I mean, if the GOP insists none of that is illegal, I say TYA.

    Yes... kidding. That's all kinds of ways illegal. If anyone doesn't believe me, ask the multiple Americans who have already entered guilty pleas and/or been convicted by multiple juries of their peers in trials for sedition -- seditious conspiracy, to be exact -- and/or obstructing the work of Congress. :)

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    so, did president grant pay his fine?

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    7

    so, did president grant pay his fine?

    Good question.

    Apparently, Grant did offer to pay the $5 fine.

    https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-president-a/

Comments for this article are closed.