We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Timing on Trump's federal trial has huge implications
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares his perspective on US politics.
What are the implications of the Trump indictment?
Former President Trump has now been indicted for a second time in the last several months, this time by federal prosecutors who are investigating a case of mishandled documents, a very serious crime in federal law. There are several questions that are going to make a difference here, though.
The first is the timing. How quickly can Trump have a trial? Does it happen quickly in the next six months or so, in which case it will land right in the middle of the Republican nominating process? Or is he able to delay the process until after well into next year, potentially after the 2024 presidential election? The implications of those two scenarios are very different for the former president. If it's a quick trial, this is going to be the dominant issue and he may actually be potentially found guilty and sent to jail before the election. If it's a later trial, this is probably just more background noise, and it doesn't affect him as directly.
The second question is, can the DOJ find a jury that is unbiased? This is the most famous man in the world, everyone knows who he is, everyone has an opinion about him, are they going to be able to find a jury that can fairly prosecute this case? If they can't, Trump may be able to claim a mistrial and we may have a long, drawn-out process here of appeals.
The third question is, what does this mean for Trump in the presidential primary? It probably makes him stronger. You have, even Republicans like Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin coming out and attacking the DOJ for these charges, and what we saw after Trump was indicted in New York was that his approval ratings within the Republican Party and his polling lead over his closest rival, Ron DeSantis, went up.
The fourth question is, what does this mean for law enforcement long-term? On the one hand, the special counsel bringing these charges proves that no man is above the law and holds Trump accountable for what seemed like very serious and plausible violations of federal law. On the other hand, you have one of America's two major political parties making broadside attacks against the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement, which is going to erode trust in those institutions over a long-time frame, no matter how just and righteous the charges against President Trump might end up being. Thanks for watching.
This has been US politics in (a little over) 60 Seconds.
Trump indicted on federal charges
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. Another Quick Take. Too much news this week to keep me down. My goodness.
Seven indictments going to be coming down on Tuesday, federal indictments, against former President Trump. Unprecedented development in US history. We see so many of those in American democracy these days. No American president has ever been federally indicted before. I'd like to say no one will ever be federal indicted again, but of course that is looking increasingly unlikely given the state and trajectory of the US political system.
Now, of course, the right thing to do here would be to wait until the indictments come down to opine on them, wait until evidence is presented, and the jury rules to determine to what extent this is a case that is appropriate on its merits. It's kind of like OJ, right? I mean, everyone was on tenterhooks until the verdict came down, and then you had the real response. No, no, no, the real response right now has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case and has to do with your political alignment. Are you on Team Trump or are you on Team I Can't Stand Trump? Depending on that, that determines your response to the case.
We've seen that already in the US political system. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy comes out immediately and very strongly with Trump sort of language, "This is a witch hunt." "This is a politicization of the Department of Justice, a sitting president going after a former president." "Can't take this seriously." I mean, if you're listening to McCarthy or if you're listening to most of the competing candidates for the Republican presidency, not all, but certainly most against Trump, your view would be that this case is illegitimate. It's being brought against Trump by Biden to destroy him, to destroy his candidacy. It is politically motivated. That you should not have any belief or support for the independent DOJ and cases that are being brought forward. That rule of law in the United States is being subverted by this very case. That is the perspective.
On the other side is the view that you can't have rule of law if one man, any man, particularly the former president or the sitting President of the United States stands above it and that rule of law doesn't apply. The breadth of the cases against former President Trump is, of course, staggering both with indictments already being brought down. Of course, these are the first federal indictments. They're not the first indictments. Other cases are proceeding apace in Georgia as well as federal case on insurrection. There was recently a civil case that Trump lost and $5 million he has to pay for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll.
I mean, this is far too much legal sturm und drang for any individual in the American political system. If these are legitimate crimes, in a system that has rule of law, you need to be prosecuting them. Then of course, there are people in the United States for whom Trump is guilty irrespective of what the facts bring, so they're prepared to try him and find him guilty in the court of the media and public opinion, irrespective of what the grand jury says, irrespective of what the evidence is found to be in the case.
I mean that by itself, the reality of this case shows a level of the US political system being broken. That's the biggest takeaway. The biggest takeaway, of course, is that impeachment no longer functions as a check on the executive. It has become inextricably politicized. It can only be used in a partisan way, and therefore it no longer holds legitimacy. That started off in the Clinton days, and it is only expanded as we've seen with former President Trump.
That is now becoming increasingly true with the Attorney General and with the special prosecutor. Irrespective of what you think about the case, the fact that it is not being tried on its merits in the court of public opinion, the fact that the media and the political leaders on the Democratic and Republican party and the American people have made up their minds about the nature of this case, that the majority of them, before any evidence is heard, shows that the US democracy is not what it once was. That's the biggest takeaway. That's the most disturbing takeaway.
Now, to look at what's going to happen going forward. This clearly isn't as serious as the insurrection case that might be brought, but it's far more serious than the case involving Stormy Daniels and the illegal use of funds to pay her off. Also, less politicized in the sense that Alvin Bragg in New York City is certainly seen to be making more of a career name for himself in going after Trump. That's not the case with the special counsel there. Indeed, the politics run in the other direction. Unless the Special counsel and the Attorney General truly believed they had a rock solid case against Trump, it is hard to imagine that they would be proceeding with it.
Having said that, Trump himself runs a grievance-based campaign. He's incredibly effective at it. He's a more effective campaigner than any political leader I've ever seen. Irrespective of how he governs, he loves campaigning. He now has a much more solid team around him for the campaign because they think he's going to win than they did in 2016 where he had the D team that all thought he was going to lose. His ability to fundraise off this. Of course, those letters were all basically out as soon as he got the phone call that the indictments were coming down.
I hate to say this, but I actually believe that these indictments make it more likely that Trump is going to get the Republican nomination. I particularly believe that because it's very unlikely that this case is going to get resolved by a grand jury before the nomination process for the GOP is complete. In fact, it's probably unlikely to get resolved before the actual election. The weird thing, of course, is if it got resolved and he was found guilty and was even in jail, again very unlikely, but as a felon, he'd still probably be able to run from jail as president, but he wouldn't be able to vote in Florida, which is all just shows how incredibly farcical the US political system has become.
The more important issue here, I guess from a positive perspective, is that there are a significant minority of Republican voters that believe that Trump should not be president if he's found guilty of a serious crime, if he's convicted of a serious crime. My point is that that is very unlikely to happen before the election process, and certainly before the nomination process. Yes, Asa Hutchinson, yes, Chris Christie are going after Trump directly, but most of the candidates, and certainly the most popular candidates are not going to, and they're going to support Trump if he gets that nomination. That's an advantage to him in the same way that McCarthy, Speaker of the House, is absolutely going to continue to do that.
What do I think? What think is we're going to cover this as a country every day. It's going to dominate headlines. It's going to help Trump, it's going to weaken US democracy. For allies around the world, this is a hit to confidence in the United States as a trusted long-term ally as a political system that they want to align with. For adversaries of the United States, it is useful as a proof point that the American political system is no better than their own. That there is a moral relativism and a hypocrisy when we talk about politics and values. That there is no right or wrong on the global stage, and to the extent that there is, that the Americans and American political elites are on the wrong side of that.
It's unfortunate. It's not what we want to see. Every American who grew up believing in liberty and democracy and rule of law has seen faith in those values shaken over the past couple of decades and continued with the news of the last 24 hours. I'm sorry to have to report on that. I still believe in the resilience, ultimately, of the US political system. But it is that very resilience that allows so many political leaders to say, "Not today. I don't have to deal with this because everything is just fine. The longer everything is seen to be just fine, the greater the erosion becomes." At some point you get a crisis. We are heading in that direction. I'm not looking forward to seeing it.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Parsing Donald Trump's indictment
Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, stopped by GZERO World to discuss three big legal stories in the news: the charges facing former US President Donald Trump, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's gifts from a billionaire Republican donor, and the recent classified documents leak.
According to Bharara, the charges leveled against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, could establish a precedent for justice and the rule of law, with significant consequences for American democracy in the future. Bharara ranked the severity of the three other potential charges that could be brought against former President Trump, with the conduct relating to the January 6th riot "being the most severe."
Though this is not the first US president to be charged with a crime, Trump's plans to run for president in 2024 while fighting criminal charges could have wide-ranging implications for the future of democracy.
"There are people who are not allies of Trump, who I think are responsibly raising the question, "What is the level of seriousness of a crime on the part of a former president that justifies bringing it?" Bharara tells Ian Bremmer, "And they're really great arguments and I struggle with this."
- Trump's indictment is problematic ›
- Trump indicted ›
- Podcast: Trumped up charges? The law & politics of investigating a president's crimes ›
- Bharara: Clarence Thomas' donor trips may not be illegal, but not a good look ›
- US intel leak shows rising risk of NATO-Russia conflict ›
- Why you should care about the legal case against the Trump Organization - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's uncertain future amid new indictments - GZERO Media ›
- Trump indicted (again) - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: Trumped up charges? The law & politics of investigating a president's crimes
Listen: Where democracy is built upon the principles of rule of law, legal challenges faced by public officials are a sober matter. On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with former US Attorney for the Southern District of NY and podcast host, Preet Bharara. Together, they explore the current state of the US legal system, the hurdles for keeping public officials to account, and the potential implications for democracy when a former president is criminally charged by federal courts. Bharara draws from his extensive experience as a prosecutor to offer insightful perspectives on pressing legal concerns, including the role of executive privilege in government accountability. The duo also takes a deep dive into news headlines, addressing the ethical dilemma surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the Ukraine leak.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Liz Truss arrives for the announcement of Britain's next Prime Minister at The Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London.
What We're Watching: Liz beats Rishi, Chile rejects charter change, Trump wins DOJ probe delay
Meet the UK's new PM
As expected, UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss won the Conservative Party leadership race on Monday and will become the next British PM, replacing the disgraced Boris Johnson. Truss — a political chameleon who's popular with the Tory base — beat former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, a moderate technocrat, by a comfortable margin of 57% of party member votes. She now faces tough challenges at home and abroad. First, a looming recession compounded by a cost-of-living crisis and an energy crunch. Truss, who fancies herself as a modern Margaret Thatcher, plans to announce big tax cuts and perhaps a temporary freeze on energy bills for the most vulnerable Brits — which her economic guru has warned would be fiscally irresponsible. Second, a likely collision course with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol. Brace for rocky times ahead as Truss tries to convince Brussels to renegotiate the post-Brexit trade deal, which scrapped a hard border between Northern Ireland, part of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state. (No surprise then that Brussels is hardly looking forward to her moving into No. 10 Downing St.) On Tuesday, Truss will travel to Scotland to meet with Queen Elizabeth II, who as per tradition will ask her to form a government at the monarch's Balmoral summer residence.
Chileans say "no" to new constitution
On Sunday, Chileans gave a resounding thumbs down to the new constitution planned to replace the current Pinochet-era charter. Almost 62% of those who voted in a referendum rejected the proposed text, which would have expanded the role of the state in the economy, recognized Indigenous rights, enforced gender parity in public institutions, and required the government to protect the environment. Although more than three-quarters of Chileans voted in October 2020 to get a new constitution, this draft failed to get majority support because many viewed it as too complicated, long (388 articles), and above all progressive. The "no" victory is a major blow to leftist President Gabriel Boric, a big supporter of the referendum whose approval rating has plunged since he was elected five months ago. Boric now says he wants to call another constituent election; to do that, though, he'll need to negotiate in Congress with the center-right opposition, which will leverage the result to influence the process. Still, Chileans may have turned down this charter, but the popular appetite for a new one hasn’t died down — and politicians dragging their feet could lead to social unrest like the 2019 mass protests that triggered the first referendum.
Trump gets his "master"
Challenging the ongoing Department of Justice investigation over his alleged obstruction of justice, Donald Trump scored a legal victory on Monday, when a federal judge granted the former US president's request to appoint a “special master” – a third-party arbiter – to decide if any of the documents seized by the Feds when they searched his Mar-a-Lago residence are covered by executive privilege. (The DOJ opposes this on the legal grounds that the highly classified records, including many labeled "Top Secret," don’t belong to Trump.) Judge Aileen Cannon — appointed by the former president and confirmed by the Senate just days before the 2020 presidential election — wrote in her judgment that while there was no sign of "callous disregard" for Trump's constitutional rights, among the documents taken on Aug. 8 from his Florida residence were some of the former president's medical and tax documents, and that warrants a “brief pause” in the investigation. The order will delay the DOJ’s probe at least until Friday, the deadline set for both the prosecution and the defense to propose their candidates for arbiter.An FBI photograph of documents and classified cover sheets recovered from former US Pesident Donald Trump's Florida estate.
What We're Watching: Trump obstruction evidence, IAEA team in Zaporizhzhia, IMF-Sri Lanka bailout deal
Did Trump conceal top-secret documents?
Donald Trump repeatedly blocked US law enforcement from accessing highly-classified documents stored at his Mar-a-Lago residence (and lied about how many files remained there), according to a scathing new document released Tuesday by the Department of Justice. The filing came in response to a recent request by the former president that the documents — seized from his Florida estate by the FBI on Aug. 8 — be reviewed by a third-party arbiter to decide if any are covered by executive privilege. (The DOJ opposes this on the legal grounds that the records don’t belong to Trump.) It’s the most detailed account to date of the months-long attempt by the National Archives – an independent agency that stores and preserves government records – to obtain classified files Trump took from the White House after the 2020 election. The filing includes a photograph of documents labeled “Top Secret” and claims that some material was so sensitive that some FBI and DOJ personnel required additional security clearances to review them. Crucially, it also states that “efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation” after Trump’s legal team ignored in the spring a grand jury subpoena seeking all classified documents. A federal court decides Thursday whether the arbiter can be brought in.
Nuclear inspectors in Zaporizhzhia
A team of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors finally arrived Wednesday in Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine. Despite heavy fighting in the area, they plan to visit the city’s contested nuclear power plant on Thursday. The group — which excludes US and UK members, as demanded by Moscow — will assess the damage from shelling and power outages that last Friday briefly disconnected the facility from Ukraine’s power grid, raising fears of another Chernobyl at Europe's largest nuclear plant. The IAEA had been asking for access to the site since March, when Russian forces took over the facility. Indeed, the task will be anything but easy: the inspectors want to interview Ukrainian workers and establish a permanent monitoring mission at the site. The Kremlin reluctantly agreed to the latter, but won't withdraw to create a demilitarized zone around the perimeter. Kyiv, for its part, is worried that Moscow will threaten workers not to speak out against the Russian presence there, giving a false impression to the international inspectors that everything is under control. Meanwhile, southern Finland reported Wednesday small amounts of radioactive isotopes, which could indicate a leak from the Ukrainian plant. Although the source is unknown, in 1986 the first hint that something had gone horribly wrong in Chernobyl was unusually high levels of radiation detected at a nuclear plant in southern Sweden. Just in case, Ukraine is doling out iodine pills to people living near Zaporizhzhia.
Down-and-out Sri Lanka close to IMF deal
Mired in its worst economic crisis ever, Sri Lanka has reportedly reached a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund. Good news for the government in Colombo, which in May became South Asia’s first to default on its foreign debt in over two decades. Years of economic mismanagement and graft under the former Rajapaksa dynasty pummeled Sri Lanka’s economy. More recently, big tax cuts in 2019 decapitated the country’s main source of revenue, while COVID decimated its tourism industry and slashed remittances. As its foreign currency reserves dried up, Colombo resorted to printing more money, pushing inflation to a whopping 70% in July. Scarce food and fuel in recent months caused mass social dislocation, prompting a run on the presidential palace and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country. News of the IMF deal came one day after new President Ranil Wickremesinghe released his first budget, which includes some tax hikes that will be painful to the struggling poor and middle class. What’s more, Sri Lanka still needs to restructure around $30 billion of debt owed to foreign creditors — including China. That might be challenging, considering that Sri Lanka is often cited as a case study in the perils of China’s debt trap diplomacy.
Will the DOJ charge Trump after Mar-a-Lago raid?
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his analysis on US politics.
How bad does the Mar-a-Lago document situation have to get before it becomes a problem for President Trump?
The answer is very bad and probably much worse than what we know of today. In the three weeks since the raid at Mar-a-Lago, we've learned very little about the contents of the documents that former President Trump is alleged to have improperly been storing in his Florida compound.
But we have learned, at a minimum, he kept classified documents outside of a secure facility. And the government is now alleging that Trump's legal team lied about the number and nature of the documents being stored there, which made it much more difficult for them to get the documents back and set up the premises for this sensational raid at Mar-a-Lago.
Even though he continues to maintain that he declassified at least some of the documents stored at his residence, the facts laid out by law enforcement so far don't look good for former President Trump. And even elected Republican officials, who rallied to his support and attacked the FBI in the wake of the raid, are much quieter than they were initially. But polling continues to show that President Trump is strong. A recent Ipsos poll found that Trump is more popular in the Republican Party than President Biden is in the Democratic Party, with 59% of Republicans saying Trump should be the Presidential nominee in 2024, versus only 44% of Democrats who want Biden to be their nominee.
Can Trump be charged? Well, that's a question for the DOJ, who will have to measure the political and institutional implications of charging a former and potentially future president, the risks of federal law enforcement being delegitimized and seen as political actors by huge parts of the country, the way they were after investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and the Trump campaigns alleged ties with Russia. And they'll have to weigh the chances of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that not only were these papers improperly stored, but that President Trump himself, and not one of his staff or associates, was criminally responsible for the improper handling.
This still seems like a very tall order that would play out in a trial that would take place in the middle of a presidential campaign that is likely to start as soon as this November. Almost anyone else surely would be charged with a crime based on what we know today. But for years now, Trump has avoided the kinds of political and legal liabilities and consequences that would've brought other people down. And so far, this doesn't look much different. Thanks for watching. This has been US Politics In a Little Over 60 Seconds.
A person wears a cap with images of Argentina's President Alberto Fernández and VP Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
What We’re Watching: Argentine VP’s legal woes, angry Haitians, Pakistan’s Qatari cash push, Trump’s DOJ suit
Is Argentina's VP on the ropes?
An Argentine prosecutor wants VP Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to spend 12 years behind bars and be disqualified from public office for life for alleged corruption from when her husband was president (2003-2007) and her own two terms in the top job (2007-2015). Cristina — popularly known by her first name — is accused of fixing public works contracts in the southern Patagonia region. The verdict drops in December, but it can be appealed and the process would likely drag on until late 2023 — just in time for the next election. Even if she's convicted, the influential VP is unlikely to see a jail cell. Although she won't have immunity if she loses her Senate seat, the Supreme Court is unlikely to ratify a guilty sentence that would be a political bomb. Still, the trial will have big implications for Cristina and the ruling Peronistas. First, a conviction might compel her to shape the 2023 presidential race by picking a loyal candidate and not the incumbent, Alberto Fernández (no relation), whom Cristina famously doesn't get along with. Second, the legal troubles might help Cristina fire up her base, especially if she decides to run for president. "She views all of this as a conspiracy between the judiciary, businessmen, and the opposition to remove her," says Eurasia Group analyst Luciano Sigalov.
Haitians demand PM’s resignation
Ça suffit! So say thousands of demonstrators in Port-au-Prince. Fed up with sky-high inflation, deepening poverty, and the spread of deadly gang violence, protesters are taking to the streets of Haiti’s capital to demand the resignation of PM and acting President Ariel Henry. Kidnappings and murder are on the rise — more than 200 were killed in just 10 days last month — and Haitians are increasingly worried about their mere survival. Henry has been in power since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021, and many suspect that Henry was somehow behind the hit. At least one protester has reportedly died in this week’s demonstrations, and things could quickly grow worse. Some 50% of Haitians are living in poverty, struggling to keep up with inflation upwards of 30%, and saying: enough is enough.
Pakistani PM in Qatar, hat in hand
What would you do if you were staring down the barrel of default and your sworn enemy – who you’re trying to send to jail – was threatening mass unrest? Get out of Dodge, ask for money, and hope the political drama boils over before you return. That's what embattled Pakistani PM Shebhaz Sharif likely hopes to accomplish this week during his visit to Qatar. In Doha, Sharif will offer deals for Qatar to buy shares in Pakistani state-owned businesses like the national airline and — checks notes — the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, as well as opportunities to sell Pakistan more energy. More importantly, Sharif's trip comes ahead of next week's big meeting to secure a $1.2 billion IMF bailout negotiated in 2019 by ... his predecessor Imran Khan, Sharif's other big headache. Khan, who was ousted in an April no-confidence vote, has been charged with violating the anti-terror act for threatening the judiciary in a fiery speech. The former PM has been summoned to appear before the court to answer the charge on Aug. 31, and Khan's supporters have responded by surrounding his residence to thwart his potential arrest. If the former cricket star is convicted, he faces a prison term and lifetime disqualification from politics.