Zagacki and Cherwitz: The role of rational argument

Published 6:00 am Friday, July 7, 2023

As scholars of political rhetoric, we find the special prosecutor’s indictment against Donald J. Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case significant because it reaffirms the role of rational argument in American democracy.

Most Americans have prided themselves on engaging in rational arguments and debates to peacefully address political and legal disputes as opposed to choosing the violence of tyrants.

Rational arguments follow a set of well-established principles and practices for deciding, in criminal cases and with modes of proof, questions of justice, guilt, and innocence, and for embodying and enacting law and order. In the Trump case, the special prosecutor wrote the indictment not just for officers of the court — but also for the general public.

The goal is to show that the indictment is grounded on solid evidence and that Mr. Trump cavalierly and knowingly violated the national security protocols of the United States.

For evidence, the indictment uses laws, photographs, text messages, and eyewitness testimony. Layers of such proof support every charge in the indictment. The indictment also uses a basic deductive reasoning pattern: People who knowingly violate certain national security laws commit serious crimes. Mr. Trump knowingly violated those national security laws; therefore, he committed serious crimes.

The special prosecutor’s indictment provides a vivid story or account of what happened from the time Mr. Trump left office to the grand jury indictment, and the special prosecutor identifies the relevant laws that were involved throughout that narrative.

The discussion of the charges (counts) appears toward the end of the indictment, and these are presented in order of seriousness. Overall, the organizational pattern adds to the argument that Mr. Trump knew there were protocols involved in the possession and use of classified documents and that he deliberately and knowingly violated or ignored those protocols when he improperly retained and stored the documents that he kept at Mar-a-Lago.

The style of the indictment conforms to accepted legal rules and practices and is written in a deliberate, matter-of-fact voice. Significantly, the indictment emphasizes, without overly emotion-laden phrasing, the gravity of Mr. Trump’s alleged illegal mishandling of the documents and obstruction of justice.

The special prosecutor’s legal argument is known as a “speaking” indictment because it includes additional facts not generally required in a regular indictment. The extra details facilitate understanding the special prosecutor’s allegations regarding Mr. Trump’s serious violation of national security laws.

Some of Mr. Trump’s supporters refuse to read the indictment or reject it because they claim that other prominent politicians were not prosecuted for possessing classified materials. But these assertions rely on false equivalencies that blur important distinctions between different cases and imply the special prosecutor or the Department of Justice has unfairly persecuted Mr. Trump.

In any event, many conservative legal commentators, such as former Trump Attorney General William P. Barr, have stated bluntly on several media outlets that the arguments in the indictment make it abundantly clear that Mr. Trump is responsible for his alleged illegal actions and that those arguments pose “a serious threat” to him.

We cannot predict whether the arguments in the indictment — based on factual allegations and legal charges — will result in Mr. Trump’s conviction or acquittal. Some legal cases end with defendants found guilty and others with defendants found innocent for many reasons beyond the arguments included in an indictment.

Still, when so many seek to smear or undermine institutions of government in the court of public opinion through threats and other rhetorical blandishments, the special prosecutor’s indictment employs rational arguments to make the U.S. government’s case in a court of law.

Regardless of political differences, Americans should welcome the indictment as a sterling example of how democratic societies employ rational arguments to peacefully resolve political and legal differences.