Jim Hartman: Trump’s indictments and the Biden ‘brand’

On Aug. 1, Donald Trump was indicted in an unprecedented criminal case accusing the former president of trying to subvert the will of American voters through his attempts to hold on to power after he lost the 2020 election.

The 45-page federal indictment charges one obstruction and three conspiracy counts alleging a broad effort to overturn the election based on “dishonesty, fraud and deceit.” This case sets a high legal hurdle for special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith must prove criminal intent on Trump’s part as opposed to protected free speech. Biden’s Justice Department is taking on a huge and politically polarizing target in an atmosphere of great mistrust over DOJ motivations – and its timing.

This third indictment provides no new evidence to establish a connection between the riot and Trump beyond his already-known tweets and public statements. There’s no recited evidence tying Trump to the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who planned to, and did, breach the Capitol.

Prosecutors at trial must prove some level of Trump’s criminal intent. That proof may come from his closest aides; former chief of staff Mark Meadows; former Vice President Mike Pence; and, former Attorney General Bill Barr.

Trump already faces trial on two earlier indictments.

On April 5, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to “hush money” paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.

A dubious lawsuit, even left-leaning legal experts predict this case may be dismissed for legal insufficiency.

On June 9, special counsel Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts related to willful retention of national defense information; conspiracy to obstruct justice; making false statements: and scheming to conceal his continued possession of classified documents.

On July 27, a superseding indictment added three additional counts for evidence tampering to that case.

Trump-friendly legal analyst Jonathan Turley concedes the documents indictment is “extremely damning.” Alan Dershowitz, who defended Trump during his 2020 impeachment trial, finds this indictment “strong” and the evidence “powerful.”

Trump’s legal woes increased with his fourth indictment along with 18 allies filed Aug. 14 in Georgia.

Meanwhile, the U.S. attorney handling the Hunter Biden case has been given broader powers to seek charges against the president’s son.

Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss was appointed special counsel to prosecute Hunter Biden. His appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was political damage control after the DOJ’s sweetheart plea deal blew up under judicial questioning.

Top Democrats dismiss Hunter Biden’s problems as those of a private citizen. But he’s not merely a private citizen. When his father was vice president from 2009 to 2017, Hunter tried to create the impression that he could leverage his family connections to help his clients.

Some clients believed it. Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, put Hunter on its board. A Chinese tycoon also signed a partnership with him. In 2013, Hunter made more than $800,000 and more than $1.2 million in 2014. In 2020, Joe Biden falsely denied his son made money in China.

Biden’s untrue claim to have “never spoken with my son about his overseas business dealings” has now morphed into “never have been in business” with Hunter.

Hunter Biden was selling the Biden “brand,” according to congressional testimony from Hunter’s former business partner, Devon Archer. Hunter put his father, then serving as vice president, on speakerphone more than 20 times, in order to sell “the brand,” Archer testified.

Archer clarified it was Joe Biden “that brought the most value to the brand.” In short, Hunter was selling his father’s power in Washington.

Joe Biden famously bragged about using $1 billion in U.S. aid to get Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin fired. Shokin was investigating Burisma.

Biden exhibited horrific bad judgment and a form of political corruption in mixing Hunter’s influence-peddling with his duties as vice president – whether or not he financially enriched himself.

E-mail Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com.