I think there's something missing from your argument: the drama inherent to the allegation.
There are degrees to the politicalness of cases. Obviously, charges brought up against an ex-president are as political as cases get, especially if they're charges from his time in office. That's clearly more political than a random tax fraud case in a random district court.
The more political a case, the more dramatic it is. The trials of celebrities and politicians are big news stories for a reason, they're one of the most exciting and interesting things to happen in the world of public figures. It's grand (a major battle in whatever culture war is being waged) and yet intimate (personal details about the public figure's life, especially their sex life, can be made public.)
Since people want excitement from these trials, the incentive exists on both sides to make it as interesting as possible - someone who's religiously following the Trump legal saga for whatever reason probably would also donate to whatever side of the culture war they're on. So the prosecution wants to bring as exciting a charge as possible. The one that looks the best as a headline. The big fish.
For example, the recent SCOTUS case is called United States of America v. Donald J. Trump (hmm I wonder why Trump's political opponents would want THAT phrase appearing in all the news articles) and features charges of "conspiracy to defraud the United States", which sounds pretty serious. It wouldn't be as strong a headline - it would be more transparently a case of lawfare if the charge was "wire fraud".
The public doesn't want politicians to constantly face obviously-bullshit politically-motivated prosecutions. The people who support the charges being brought against Trump are because they're charges that he did things they think he's guilty of. That's WHY the lawsuits are okay, because everyone agrees that it would be bad if the courts were used as political weapons in such transparent fashion - but a credible case can be brought against Trump of some serious stuff! Serious enough to overcome the norm that so many of his predecessors enjoyed, which was not spending half their post-presidency in courtrooms fending off countless lawsuits.
tl;dr they CAN endlessly charge politicians with wire fraud and tax evasion but it would defeat the purpose quickly because trials of politicians would cease to be valuable political theater.
Enjoyed this post. Let me know if you are OK with this being shared online: I have "Narrated" the post through ElevenLabs for those like me that find audio more accessible.
I think there's something missing from your argument: the drama inherent to the allegation.
There are degrees to the politicalness of cases. Obviously, charges brought up against an ex-president are as political as cases get, especially if they're charges from his time in office. That's clearly more political than a random tax fraud case in a random district court.
The more political a case, the more dramatic it is. The trials of celebrities and politicians are big news stories for a reason, they're one of the most exciting and interesting things to happen in the world of public figures. It's grand (a major battle in whatever culture war is being waged) and yet intimate (personal details about the public figure's life, especially their sex life, can be made public.)
Since people want excitement from these trials, the incentive exists on both sides to make it as interesting as possible - someone who's religiously following the Trump legal saga for whatever reason probably would also donate to whatever side of the culture war they're on. So the prosecution wants to bring as exciting a charge as possible. The one that looks the best as a headline. The big fish.
For example, the recent SCOTUS case is called United States of America v. Donald J. Trump (hmm I wonder why Trump's political opponents would want THAT phrase appearing in all the news articles) and features charges of "conspiracy to defraud the United States", which sounds pretty serious. It wouldn't be as strong a headline - it would be more transparently a case of lawfare if the charge was "wire fraud".
The public doesn't want politicians to constantly face obviously-bullshit politically-motivated prosecutions. The people who support the charges being brought against Trump are because they're charges that he did things they think he's guilty of. That's WHY the lawsuits are okay, because everyone agrees that it would be bad if the courts were used as political weapons in such transparent fashion - but a credible case can be brought against Trump of some serious stuff! Serious enough to overcome the norm that so many of his predecessors enjoyed, which was not spending half their post-presidency in courtrooms fending off countless lawsuits.
tl;dr they CAN endlessly charge politicians with wire fraud and tax evasion but it would defeat the purpose quickly because trials of politicians would cease to be valuable political theater.
Enjoyed this post. Let me know if you are OK with this being shared online: I have "Narrated" the post through ElevenLabs for those like me that find audio more accessible.
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/theres-always-tax-fraud-by-theodidactus