Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. made the following comments a couple of weeks ago: “Covid-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately.” “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”
RFK Jr.’s anti-Semitic grandfather, Joseph Kennedy, would have been proud of his grandson. RFK Jr. distinguishes Jews and Caucasians. This distinction had been used before, including in Nazi Germany, to distinguish Jews from other Caucasians such as Germans. Secondly, Kennedy references Ashkenazi Jews. This was deliberate. The Jews found in Germany and in Russia were mostly Ashkenazi. The hoax of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion came from a country with Ashkenazi Jews. Despite these comments, Kennedy was invited to and testified at a House of Representative Committee meeting chaired by Republicans. It makes their pledge to fight anti-Semitism a hollow promise.
Now to my main discussion. As we wait for what most people expect is another indictment of former president Donald Trump, I just wanted to address the most common objection. They do not address the merits of the charges. Instead, they argue that the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Biden, who is running for reelection, should not criminally charge Trump, the candidate from the other party who is leading in the polls to become the party’s nominee. Instead, the voters should make the determination.
Like many statements, if one considers it superficially it could make sense. However, if you delve deeper, you will understand why it is an absurd, unworkable proposition. I will dissect it almost word by word. The first objection is that since the president is running, it would create a conflict of interest if the DOJ, which they believe is under his control, brings charges. The implication is that it would be okay if Biden were not running or if the person bringing the charges is not part of the DOJ. That is not their position, since they also object to state charges even though state procedures are not under the control of the president or the DOJ. What they really want is to prohibit any elected law prosecutor, whether District Attorney or Attorney General in the entire United States, who was elected as a Democrat, and US attorneys from all fifty states from bringing any criminal charges.
The next word is crime. There is no limitation listed. Some of the Trumpians wrote that they do not care what he is being charged with. Thus, any Republican, including Trump, could commit crimes without fear of prosecution in the jurisdictions listed above.
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that although they said crimes, they did not mean all crimes. So let’s try to see what crimes should not be included. Clearly it is not limited to a misdemeanor, since Trump is charged with felonies in the state and federal prosecutions. The state and federal charges both involve nonviolent felonies. Is that going to be the standard? There are plenty of nonviolent crimes that people would find horrendous, such as manufacturing and/or distributing fentanyl or criminal conduct involving minors.
The next requirement is that the target has to be from a different party. Therefore, according to them it would be okay if a candidate who is running and leading in the polls is from the same party. I am not sure why that is any different than going after a person of an opposite party. The goal is the same: to win the election.
The next requirement is that the person is leading in the polls. It would not matter whether the lead is one percentage point or fifty percentage points. Also, whose polls do you use to determine? Is it nonpartisan groups or Republic National Committee? Is it a nationwide poll or state by state? What happens if the polls charge or are contradictory? Also, what is the determining day? Right now, it is six months before the first primary.
The ridiculousness of this approach is illustrated in the situation that occurred at this time in 2015. According to an NBC/WSJ (Wall Street Journal) poll, as of June 2015, Bush was leading with 22% while Trump was at 1%. According to a CNN poll, as of June 30, 2015, Donald Trump was polling at 13% and Jeb Bush, the frontrunner, had 19 percent. The month before, Trump had 3% while Marco Rubio was the frontrunner at 14%. Based on those numbers, at that time, Trump could have been charged with a crime while Bush in June 2015 could not. If you followed the CNN poll the month before, Rubio could not have been charged. Then when the numbers changed the charges against Trump would have to be dismissed and then charges could be brought against Bush. Suppose the numbers had changed again as they did a month earlier in the CNN poll?
Currently, every other Republican candidate is fair game for criminal charges since their poll numbers are lower than Trump’s. Suppose their numbers go up and Trump goes down. If someone else besides Trump wins Iowa or New Hampshire and leads in delegates at any time, is that enough to change the dynamic as to criminal liability?
Their suggested alternative to criminal prosecution is to let the voters decide. With such logic, no elected official including George Santos or one running for office should be charged with any crime. Let the voters decide whether they want to elect someone who may have committed a crime. It is a great way to commit crimes and stay out of jail. Just run for office or run for reelection. Suppose the voters decide that Biden should win reelection. Does that mean that Trump should be then charged with a crime?
My point is that those who argue why charges should not be brought against Trump for the above-mentioned reasons are nonsensical on so many levels. We have a system that works. It is the criminal justice system that protects the defendant’s rights. Judges and jurors have the ability to determine cases on the facts and the law and if necessary, respond to prosecution overreach.
Warren S. Hecht is a local attorney. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
