Trump Is Acting Like He’s Cornered
In some ways, Donald Trump’s mental state is more transparent than nearly any public figure’s: He has no shame, little discretion, and ample channels to broadcast his feelings in real time. Yet his constant stream of consciousness and always elevated dudgeon make it hard to parse the finer fluctuations in his mood.
Even so, the former president’s public behavior since Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted him last week suggests a man feeling cornered. This isn’t to say that Trump is cornered—his ability to escape tough situations makes him the envy of every house cat—but his handling of the case suggests a man rattled in a way he seldom has been before.
The former president has attacked Smith in terms that are strikingly personal, even for him. He has also attacked Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge assigned to hear the case. He delivered angry speeches in Alabama and South Carolina. He jeered the U.S. Women’s National Team, blamed President Joe Biden for its early exit from the World Cup, and unintelligibly ridiculed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (“She is a Wicked Witch whose husbands journey from hell starts and finishes with her. She is a sick & demented psycho who will someday live in HELL!”). He sent his attorney out to do all five major Sunday-morning TV programs. The Daily Beast spoke with Trump insiders who reported serious apprehensions inside his camp.
[David A. Graham: Trump attempted a brazen, dead-serious attack on American democracy]
But what neither he nor his allies have done is offer a coherent account of his actions—one that would suggest that he didn’t conspire to overthrow the duly elected government. This is likely for the simple reason that he conspired to overthrow the duly elected government.
“Deranged Jack Smith is going before his number one draft pick, the Judge of his ‘dreams’ (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!), in an attempt to take away my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS - This, despite the fact that he, the DOJ, and his many Thug prosecutors, are illegally leaking, everything and anything, to the Fake News Media!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social site this morning.
This message followed a string of other rants in recent days, including attacks on former Vice President Mike Pence (“Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side”) and Chutkan (“THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE “ASSIGNED” TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE”).
Attacking the judge and the prosecutor in your case is not generally recommended as a defense strategy, but then, Trump has little use for courtesy, niceties, or basic common sense. Smith is clearly paying attention; prosecutors cited an ambiguously threatening social-media post in a court filing just hours after it was posted. (“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!" the message said; a Trump spokesperson claimed that this was actually directed at “the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”) The difference between Trump’s broadsides against Chutkan, a Black Obama appointee who hasn’t even had a chance to make any consequential decisions in the case yet, and his lack of criticism for Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee overseeing the Florida case over his mishandling of classified documents, is notable if not surprising.
[Ronald Brownstein: Trump’s threat to democracy is now systemic]
Discerning Trump’s agitation is easy enough; determining the goal of his outbursts is not so straightforward. One interpretation is that he’s trying to goad Smith’s team and turn its members from prosecutors into persecutors, baiting them to overreact or demand onerous conditions, which Trump could in turn use to demand a venue change or appeal a conviction. But this is reminiscent of the South Park–birthed underpants-gnome meme: The first steps and desired outcome are clear, but it’s completely mysterious what the middle steps might be. For all Trump’s comments that Smith is “deranged,” the special counsel instead seems preternaturally, even uncannily, impassive. Chutkan, like other D.C. judges, has rejected prior claims that January 6 trials can’t be fairly held in the district.
An alternative theory is that Trump is just playing to the court of public opinion rather than the court of law. Yesterday, Trump’s attorney John Lauro did the circuit of Sunday shows, a maneuver that Beltway nerds call the “Full Ginsburg,” after William Ginsburg, an attorney for Monica Lewinsky who pioneered it to respond to reports about his client’s relationship with then-President Bill Clinton. It’s a powerful public-relations tool—used by candidates for president, for example—but somewhat baffling as a pretrial maneuver.
Trump is often more interested in rousing his supporters than pursuing a prudent defense, apparently concluding that whatever his problems with the law, his political clout will be enough to evade or at least finesse the jeopardy. In the two federal cases against him, he may finally be facing charges that are not so easily circumvented, but his response has not necessarily caught up.
[David A. Graham: The real weaponization of the Justice Department]
On some level, the PR offensive might be working. More than half of Americans, according to a new CBS News/YouGov poll, think the charges against Trump are aimed at hurting his 2024 campaign, though solid majorities also think the charges are about upholding rule of law and defending democracy. But the actual arguments Lauro offered on TV don’t seem especially well crafted, and seem likely instead to reinforce the reality that whether the public wants him convicted or not, it is appalled by Trump’s attempt at stealing the election.
Lauro argued in different appearances that Trump’s alleged behavior was “aspirational.” For example, “What President Trump didn’t do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything,” Lauro said on CNN. “He asked him in an aspirational way.” He also called Trump’s request for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” an “aspirational ask.” This is the kind of distinction without a difference that gives legalism a bad name. Lauro also said that even if Trump committed a “technical violation of the Constitution,” he didn’t commit a crime. But telling the public that your client violated the Constitution seems like a questionable PR decision.
Neither Lauro, in his five appearances, nor Trump, going back to his initial response to the indictment, has actually rebutted the charges. Trump has claimed that the government is attacking his right to free speech, but he has made nearly no effort to question the specifics of the charges. A rare example is his denial of Pence’s claim that Trump said he was “too honest.” More broadly, Trump hasn’t offered any bigger explanation for his weeks-long push to subvert the election. If Trump is acting as though he’s cornered, that is because he doesn’t have a good answer to this question.