The nine-page settlement agreement of President Trump’s unwinnable lawsuit against the I.R.S,, which already included an illegal tax-free provision, had that one-page coda. I wrote about it yesterday, but this is sinking in.
I feel like an idiot. Since 2016, I have tried hard to be fair to Donald Trump, to give him the presumption of good will and legitimacy all Presidents deserve, and indeed must have to function. I am certain that the attitudes of the Trump Deranged have been destructive, undemocratic, biased and irrational, but this latest development raises the strong possibility that they happened to be right.
A Democratic, progressive criminal defense attorney who believes, with so may of my friends and colleagues, that the President “Trump “has two, and only two, motivations: Self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. He’s done nothing in his second term to suggest otherwise”—a starting point that I still believe is biased and based substantially on hate—writes today in part,
“Can Trump do this? Is any of this lawful and constitutional?….[T]his post hoc addendum to a “settlement agreement” that elevates the concept of collusion to its apex breaks ground never before molested. The idea of any past President doing something so audacious, so self-serving, so blatant, seems incredible. The public would never accept it. Perhaps the public still won’t, even if the MAGA faithful will. That remains to be seen, subject to the likelihood of the Democratic Party doing something to self-destruct and remind Americans why they elected Trump a second time despite knowing who he was. There is no ready answer as to what can be done about this…We are deep into virgin territory of graft, corruption and self-dealing, with little expectation of any governmental guardrail holding fast…And much as it’s hard to fathom what he could do that’s worse than this, it would be stunningly naive to believe that we’ve hit rock bottom.”
The rest of Scott Greenfield’s commentary is, as usual, marred by the typical hyperbole of a true-blue progressive and Trump hater, but in those words above I find nothing that I can reject. I regard the episode a betrayal of trust by everyone involved, especially the President, reckless, beyond rational defending, destructive to the nation, and politically stupid.
Now what?
Ethics Alarms 
You weren’t wrong to be fair to Trump. That he demonstrates that he is indeed unethical sometimes is hardly a surprise, but it doesn’t mean fairness isn’t required when it is warranted.
No, this action is wrong and should be understood by everyone to be wrong. Most certainly, the Democrats will do the equivalent of “I told you so” and ignoring precedents on the part of their own party. Many Americans will keep going as normal because they, like our MSNow journalist in the last entry, don’t understand our history or system of government and because they have learned to advocate Sicilian ethics.
Therefore, Obama sics the IRS on conservative/Tea Party groups. His DOJ works to install Hillary Clinton as President. Trump endures an entire first administration of contrived impeachments and a break in administrations filled with lawfare designed to prevent him from running again, as well as his followers being targeted. The Biden administration claims that Trump will target Joe’s officials and relatives in retaliation, so Biden pardons everyone he can think of, including for actions not yet charged or known of.
Trump, remembering the last time he was in office, takes steps to prevent the IRS from being weaponized against him and his family in the future and sets up a fund to help those likewise targeted.
This is where we are now. I don’t excuse it…but it certainly explains Trump’s thinking behind it. Administrations are attempting to shield themselves, their supporters and their relatives from vindictive actions they are certain will be taken by their opponents. This culture of toxic divisiveness – for which I blame the Democrats for starting (yes, I know this looks like a childhood game of “He/She started it!!”) – has led to this. Trump’s natural inclination for self-promotion combined with his own petty vindictiveness and will to survive have resulted in this ridiculous deal.
And it would really cool if we had a responsible news media full of educated journalists who are willing to explain what American democracy is and what is or is not supposed to happen in it, but all we have are people who only have a vague notion of the existence of the Declaration of Independence and no notion of what’s actually in it.
Jack,
Is there any chance you’d be willing to parse out Section C? (And dummy that I am, I thought initially that Section C of the addendum was just a reiteration of III.B of the settlement until I read very closely.) I don’t know if I’m focusing on a pinhole leak in a pipe when there’s a massive break downstream, but as I’m trying to figure out what it really says, I’m wondering if it is really as broad as Scott Greenfield says it is. The restriction on the US from prosecuting or pursuing claims against Trump, his family, any joint filers, his corporations, etc, seem to be limited to only the matters raised by Trump’s lawsuit. Am I reading this completely wrong?
Also, I’m wondering if this is anything akin to Julius Caesar and his Gallic Wars. Having made major political enemies in Rome, and being in gross debt from his earlier political endeavors, Caesar basically invaded Gaul for spoils, further military victories, and to keep his enemies at bay. When the Senate finally demanded he disband his army and return to Rome to face a trail, Caesar decided to toss the dice and bring his army to Rome.
Is this move on Trump’s part a salvo to protect himself once he’s out of office?
There are lots of interesting parallels between modern USA and the end of the Roman Republic. And also the modern USA and the end of the Roman Empire. And also the modern USA and all sorts of other analogs because history rhymes. History is a great advisory board.
However, while there are some pretty glaring similarities between the Senate and Julius Caesar and the Democrats and Trump, I think one very very key difference is that Julius Caesar *was* engaging in a war in Gaul not for any need of the SPQR but for his own personal glory, thus making *him* in the wrong and the Senate in the right (even though they were all pretty corrupt themselves).
Trump? We have no idea how he would have been as President if the Democrats hadn’t conducted themselves like juvenile delinquents at best and outright insurgents at worst.
There’s no universe in which we can presume that Trump would have done something like this if it wasn’t for the conditions created entirely by the progressive side of the aisle. So no, they aren’t “possibly” ‘right’ about their hyperventilations of the past 12 years. Whether it’s the right outcome or not, Trump can reasonably be seen to be acting as someone who knows – based on the past 12 years of progressive behavior – that once he’s out of office, he and anyone associated with him will live a life constantly pursued, hounded, harassed and otherwise being sought for destruction.
It’s an ugly compromise – but I don’t see how any of this would have been necessary if the Democrats hadn’t, well, you know what all they’ve done.
This action is far tamer than what I had recommended.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/05/29/ethics-dunce-the-biden-campaign/#comment-867771
What I wonder is why Republican prosecutors have not been doing this since 2023. The road was already paved, all they had to do was travel it.
And paving that road did not start in 2023. It started with Ronnie Earle. It started with Lois Lerner. It started with Michael McCrum.