MU professors on Trump charges: 'Very grave,' 'watershed moment,' 'world of hurt'

The new charges against former President Donald Trump are very serious and the case against him is strong, say three University of Missouri professors in the areas of constitutional law and political science.

Trump was arraigned Thursday on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

A "not guilty" plea was entered.

From the indictment: "The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitmate results of the 2020 presidential election."

Count one relates to alleged plots to recruit fake electors in several states, co-conspirators' claims of election fraud they knew to be untrue and attempts to influence Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the election results.

The official proceeding Trump is alleged to have obstructed was the certification of the election on Jan. 6. Conspiracy against rights alleges Trump and co-conspirators did "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people to deprive them of their right to vote and for their votes to be counted.

'A world of hurt'

It's an unfortunate situation, but it required action by the Justice Department, said Frank Bowman, MU Curators' Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Law.

"He's in a world of hurt when this gets to trial," Bowman said.

Bowman wrote "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump." A second edition with updates is coming soon, he said.

"I think factually, it's a very strong case," Bowman said.

The system should be reluctant to ever indict a former president, he said.

"We've never done it before for good reason," Bowman said. "You create cycles of retribution and revenge that way."

The actions of Trump and co-conspirators represents such a danger that Special Counsel Jack Smith was left with no other choice, Bowman said.

Trump and his supporters claim he was just practicing his free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The claim was raised during Trump's second impeachment, which focused narrowly on incitement of the Jan. 6 riot, Bowman said.

"It embraces a great deal more than mere speech," Bowman said of the indictment. "there's no First Amedment right to steal elections,"

The indictment states that Trump had a right to make statements that he thought the election results were fraudulent and even to mount legal challenges to results, as he did unsuccessfully. It's the allegedly unlawful means that Trump used for which he has been charged, the indictment reads.

"The indictment is structured to rebut the defense," Bowman said.

'Very grave'

A serious case that should be taken through the regular channels of the judicial system, is how the indictment was described by Jay Sexton, the Rich and Nancy Kinder Chair in Constitutional Democracy in the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy at MU.

"It's very grave," Sexton said of the allegations. "You can't think of anything more serious than what's in the indictment."

He also discounted the defenses offered by Trump and his supporters. The indictment isn't prosecuting speech, he said.

"It's focusing on alleged actions trying to subvert an election," Sexton said.

It's an unusual situation, he said.

"The legal and the constitutional dimensions and political dimensions are at odds," he said.

He offered a way people can gain understanding of the case.

"I hope every citizen reads the indictment," Sexton said.

Politicians and generals don't determine how history unfolds, he said.

'Watershed moment'

There's been nothing like this before in American history, said Peverill Squire, MU poltical science professor and Griffiths Chair in American Political Institutions.

"Clearly this is a watershed moment in American political life," Squire said.

It will consume the political conversation for at least the next year, he said.

"The legal system sometimes moves slowly," Squire said. "It will be a sequence of events we haven't experienced before."

The indictment focuses on what Trump and co-conspirators allegedly did, not what they said, he said.

"The arguments that have been offered so far don't address the charges that have been made against him," Squire said.

Classified documents case

Asked about the classified documents case, Squire and Sexton said the conspiracy case is the more important of the two, but it will move faster through the courts because it doesn't involve classified documents.

Both agreed that both cases are important.

"Classified documents linked to national security are linked to real people who work for the government" who can be placed in danger if their identities are revealed, Sexton said. "There's a reason why documents are classified."

Roger McKinney is the Tribune's education reporter. You can reach him at rmckinney@columbiatribune.com or 573-815-1719. He's on Twitter at @rmckiney9.

This article originally appeared on Columbia Daily Tribune: Here's what MU three MU professors say about the charges against Trump