SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
trump indictment
We Will Need Each Other to Confront King Trump
We are seeing in real time how autocracy happens, by creating hopelessness and despair among the mass of people who once might have fought back.
Nov 08, 2024
It took only hours after a majority of Americans chose to return Donald Trump as a strongman-style president for the first billionaire supplicant to come forward on bended knee. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the third-richest person on the planet, had already made his intentions clear in the waning days of the 2024 campaign when the influential newspaper he owns, The Washington Post, spiked a long-planned endorsement of rival Kamala Harris at his instruction.
In a rare tweet Wednesday, Bezos—beneficiary of massive federal contracts—laid it on thick. “Big congratulations to our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory,” Bezos posted on X, which is owned by the richest person on the planet, Elon Musk. “No nation has bigger opportunities. Wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.”
It almost goes without saying that Bezos said nothing Wednesday about the fact that, as owner of the Post, he is also the keeper of a remarkable legacy of watchdog journalism, which defied the White House in 1971 in publishing the secret Pentagon Papers and then produced the investigative reporting that helped bring down Richard Nixon in Watergate. There was no Bezos pep talk to his journalists that such heroism for democracy would be acted out now. Less than 48 hours after Trump’s election as the 47th president, this kind of silence has been deafening.
From the obsequious Bezos to the end of resistance from everyday folk, we are seeing the once unthinkable: the start of American autocracy.
Although it feels almost normal to flip on CNN and watch talking heads speculate on whom the president-elect is picking for his cabinet, there is nothing normal about the Trump transition, even with a president who’s been elected before. So much has changed since the tumultuous autumn of 2016. This time, America is rolling out a red carpet for a king—one who will, in the ultimate irony, preside over the 250th anniversary of that time when we overthrew a monarchy.
I know that sounds like hyperbole, or what The 51% calls “Trump derangement syndrome.” But the nation already on Wednesday received its first major bit of news—and there are going to be many, many more to come—making it clear that Trump is returning to the White House with stunning absolute powers that none of his 44 predecessors (Grover Cleveland, and now Trump, twice) either possessed or were willing to exercise over the American people.
It came in the form of a revelation from the U.S. Justice Department that special counsel Jack Smith—who aggressively, if too belatedly, brought federal indictments against Trump for the 2020 efforts to overturn the last presidential election that culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection, and for Trump taking highly classified documents—is planning steps that would have the likely impact of ending his cases before Trump takes the oath of office.
Multiple news outlets quoted sources within the Justice Department that Smith is now is active talks about how to “wind down” the two cases against Trump—with the one about classified documents already on life support after a zealously pro-Trump, Trump-appointed lower court judge dismissed the charges for now—before he becomes president again on January 20. It’s not yet clear whether Smith is planning to permanently dismiss the charges or—more likely—put them on some type of hold that would nonetheless make justice nearly impossible, since Trump would be 82 if he leaves office as scheduled in 2029, and there would be questions about the statute of limitations.
Such maneuvers would be in line with the controversial and legally debated Justice Department decision from the Nixon era that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, which already gave any POTUS a unique standing above the law. But remember that Trump was on track to stand trial in the January 6 case this year, if not for the U.S. Supreme Court’s stunning 6-3 ruling earlier this year giving presidents sweeping legal immunity for broadly defined “official acts.”
When Smith does appear before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to end the case, it will be a triple exclamation point on how a once revolutionary nation turned a president into a king.
Some legal experts are arguing that Smith is playing the horrendous hand that he’s been dealt here, perhaps scrambling to issue an in-depth report about Trump’s alleged wrongdoing before the new president’s MAGA appointees can fire him. I get that, but my nonlawyer gut tells me that Smith should make Trump and his lackeys dismiss the case themselves, as one more reminder that Trump is trashing every last democratic norm we have.
But how 2017-ish of me to even think that. The decision has already been made in all our former watchdog institutions to obey the new authoritarianism in advance. You can hear it in the quiet of an unseasonably warm November breeze.
The dogs of 2016 and 2017 are not barking. There are no people in the streets chanting, “We! Reject! The president-elect!” or carrying “Not My President” signs like eight years ago. Kids aren’t walking out of high school, and college presidents—reflecting the catastrophic erosions of free speech in America that go well beyond Trumpism—are not issuing statements.
New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote Thursday about the Russian lifestyle of “internal emigration”—turning away from politics to emphasize family or books or gardening or anything else besides the seeming hopelessness of opposing autocracy.
This is exactly what I’m hearing from so many friends and even family here in Greater Philadelphia and on social media. People are leaving Musk’s X in droves, partly to protest the billionaire, but mostly to disengage from politics, at least for now. One boomer woman who threw herself into the so-called Trump Resistance in 2016 wrote me Thursday to say she is done. Protesting Trump, she wrote, “was an utter failure. I’m tired, demoralized, and bitter.”
I don’t blame her, nor would I think of criticizing the many people emphasizing their own mental health over politics at a moment when it’s not even clear what to do next. We are seeing in real time how autocracy happens, by creating hopelessness and despair among the mass of people who once might have fought back. From the obsequious Bezos to the end of resistance from everyday folk, we are seeing the once unthinkable: the start of American autocracy.
I was fortunate Thursday morning to connect with one of the nation’s top experts on authoritarian regimes, the Yale University historian Timothy Snyder, whose words—especially, “do not obey in advance”—from his essential On Tyranny are frequently quoted here. I wanted to ask him the question on so many people’s minds since Tuesday: What has history taught us about how to live now?
Snyder told me the most important thing for the moment is to avoid isolation and be around other people. “They want you to be alone,” the historian said of autocratic governments because isolation feeds the sense of powerlessness that allows the regime to do its dirty work unimpeded. “Nobody is going to fix this alone,” Snyder said. “That’s not how this works.”
Second, he suggested: “This is a good time to figure out what you’re good at. Define some little human-sized zone, whether it’s your library or your garden or your trade union. Take something positive that you know and do it.” He also noted that the political feeling of despair in opposing Trump and his MAGA movement doesn’t mean you can’t work for change on the state and local level, where one can still hash out issues with forward-minded politicians.
Snyder then suggested, with a laugh, what he called “a dumb little idea”—except that it wasn’t.
“Take a moment and write down a letter about the things you care about, that you’re willing to take a stand about. Write that down, put it in an envelope, and take it out of your desk as we’re going through these things”—like when Trump takes office in January, or early in his term.
Those of us who opposed Trump, and who were devastated to learn how many of our fellow citizens want to live under his strongman rule, need time to mourn this week’s news. But it’s well worth listening to Snyder’s words about not just living under tyranny, but someday soon finding reasonable ways to confront it. We are going to need each other, whether it’s in the streets or just at the dog park. And you—we—are not alone.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hey Trump, Who’s the Real Garbage?
On a telephone call-in to Fox & Friends, Trump said Vice President Kamala Harris was “real garbage.” It is now fair game for her to take it up and use it against him.
Jul 28, 2024
Former U.S. President Donald Trump just gave Vice President Kamala Harris what might prove to be the most effective line of attack for the entire presidential election campaign.
On a telephone call-in to Fox & Friends, Trump said Harris was “real garbage.” It was typical of Trump’s ad hominem attacks against all of his opponents.
But such attacks have never really been effectively parried, so he’s gotten away with them. They’ve worked. Everybody remembers “Crooked Hillary,” “Little Marco,” and other epithets.
But since it was Trump who uttered the line, it is now fair game for Harris to take it up and use it against him. It will be utterly devastating, throwing back into his face the truth about who he is.
“Who’s the real garbage,” curated to an epigram in the culture, can become the four-word death knell for Trump’s re-election bid, exposing in his own words, and illustrated by his own actions, just how unfit he is to be president.
First, let’s remember who Kamala Harris is.
She has a law degree from the University of California Hastings School of Law. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. From there, she was elected attorney general for the state of California. In 2016, she was elected to the U.S. Senate, the second African-American woman to serve in the Senate and the first Asian-American woman to serve.
In 2020, she was elected vice president of the United States, receiving over 81 million votes on the ticket with Joe Biden. That is almost 8 million more votes than were cast for Donald Trump. She is the first woman ever to hold that office, the highest elective office in the U.S. ever filled by a woman.
She has performed those duties for a president, Joe Biden, who is already ranked as the 14th best president in American history by 154 presidential scholars. In that same survey, Trump was voted the worst president in history.
This is the profile of one of the highest achieving women in the history of the country, and a double-minority one, to boot. In no world is it even close to “garbage.”
But since Trump offered the opening, Harris should make it a standard part of every appearance she makes—from rallies to debates—asking, “Who’s the real garbage?” And then, marching through the astonishing litany of Donald Trump’s character as revealed by his own actions.
For example…
Donald Trump has accused me of being “real garbage.” I’m serious! Let’s take a look at who’s the real garbage.
I’m not a convicted criminal. He is. Thirty-four times over! So, who’s the real garbage?
I never had an affair with a porn star and tried to hide it by buying her off to keep her quiet. He did. So, who’s the real garbage?
I don’t owe more than half a billion dollars(!) in legal judgements for things like tax evasion and defamation, but he does. So, who’s the real garbage?
The Washington Post says—and I’m quoting here—“Trump Was Found to Have Raped E. Jean Carroll.” Let me say that again. This is the headline. Quote: “Trump Was Found to Have Raped E. Jean Carroll.” RAPE! So, who’s the real garbage?
My boss wasn’t ranked the worst president in American history by a group of 154 presidential scholars. HE was. The worst president in American history. Look it up. So, who’s the real garbage?
I didn’t try to overturn a presidential election and steal the votes of 81 MILLION people who voted for Joe Biden and me. He did. So, who’s the real garbage?
And, I haven’t been lying about it for four years because I couldn’t admit that I was a loser. But he has. He’s not just a loser. He’s a sore loser, which everybody hates. So, who’s the real garbage?
I didn’t inherit $413 million from my daddy, and then pretend for decades that I was a self-made man. But, he did. So, who’s the real garbage?
I didn’t go bankrupt six times while stiffing thousands of workers of their rightful pay. All the while claiming to be a business genius. He did. So, who’s the real garbage?
I’m not a pathological liar, telling more than 30,000 DOCUMENTED lies during four years in office. THIRTY THOUSAND! But he did. So, who’s the real garbage?
Very quickly, the refrain will be taken up by everybody in the audience, in a question-response manner that will become a signature statement of the campaign. It will carry from rally to rally, through the convention, naming the lowlife for what he is, in a way that he will never be able to escape.
This is so important. We can already see that Trump is going to wage a vicious, scurrilous campaign. Harris cannot let him control the narrative, nor define her in his terms, as he’s trying to do with “real garbage.” Trump’s prior opponents have mistakenly allowed him to do that.
“Who’s the real garbage?” needs to become the “Lock her up” of Harris’ campaign. That is, the repeated, raucous, reflexive recitation of contempt for Trump that becomes embedded into the culture and, therefore, larger than life.
“Who’s the real garbage,” curated to an epigram in the culture, can become the four-word death knell for Trump’s re-election bid, exposing in his own words, and illustrated by his own actions, just how unfit he is to be president. Every American will know it.
The deliciousness of it comes from the fact that it’s all true, and that somebody, for the first time, is truly nailing Trump for who he is. It will make him the central figure in the campaign, as he’s always so desperate to be. He deserves no less. Nor do we.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Trump, the President Is Not Above the Law
In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it could not endorse Trump’s “contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
Feb 07, 2024
A federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump’s assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This landmark ruling marks a significant step in efforts to hold the former president accountable, clearing the way for him to go to trial for his multi-pronged effort to thwart the peaceful transfer of power. All eyes now turn to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose potential review of the appeals court’s ruling could introduce additional delays.
In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it could not endorse Trump’s “contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.” The ruling stems from Trump’s criminal prosecution in federal district court in Washington. The August 2023 indictment in that case, United States v. Trump, alleges that Trump orchestrated and participated in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results, a driving force behind the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
The federal government charges that Trump and his allies promoted false claims of election fraud, pushed state officials to ignore the results of the popular vote, organized slates of false Trump electors, pressured the Justice Department to conduct sham election-crime investigations, and tried to get Vice President Mike Pence to replace authentic electors with phony ones.
The court emphasized that Trump’s alleged crimes violated foundational democratic values that the president is sworn to uphold and represented too severe a threat to the continued functioning of our democratic system of government to be shielded from prosecution.
Seeking to derail the prosecution, Trump argued that his case should be dismissed because presidents enjoy immunity for any “official” acts they undertake while in office—a radical claim that would put presidents above the law. The trial court rejected this argument in December, and Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
The appeals court’s unanimous affirmation of the trial court comes from three judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Their opinion held that a president may be prosecuted for any criminal acts he undertook as president. Echoing the trial court, the three-judge panel rejected Trump’s “contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly ‘official’ action that he took as President—a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history, or the text and structure of the Constitution.”
The court’s opinion expressly refrained from comment on whether Trump did in fact commit the crimes he is charged with. But the court concluded that if federal prosecutors are able to prove them, Trump could not claim immunity to escape punishment. In other words, “former President Trump has become citizen Trump” since leaving office, subject to criminal prosecution like all other people. The court explained that ruling otherwise would create a “striking paradox” of allowing “the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” to be the “sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.”
The court emphasized that Trump’s alleged crimes violated foundational democratic values that the president is sworn to uphold and represented too severe a threat to the continued functioning of our democratic system of government to be shielded from prosecution. Noting that “[f]ormer President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government,” the court refused to accept Trump’s “claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results.”
The court also concluded that Trump’s argument in favor of immunity, if accepted, would “collapse of our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,” by stopping Congress from declaring certain acts illegal, preventing future presidents from holding lawbreakers accountable, and blocking courts from holding trials. The court underscored that while a former president has never been prosecuted federally, past presidents thought they could be—as evidenced by Gerald Ford offering, and Richard Nixon accepting, a pardon “to avoid Nixon’s post-resignation indictment,” and Bill Clinton “agree[ing] to a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine” to avoid prosecution.
The district court’s preparations for Trump’s trial have been on hold since December while the D.C. Circuit has been considering his appeal on the question of immunity. The trial preparations can restart after February 12, unless Trump appeals his case to the Supreme Court or if a panel comprised of the whole D.C. Circuit decides to take it up.
Regardless of any further appeals, the significance of the D.C. Circuit’s decision cannot be overstated. The criminal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith remains a powerful tool for holding Trump accountable for his attempts to overthrow our democracy, with the potential of lengthy jail time for Trump. Today, the judiciary has made its voice clear: no one is above the law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular