Trump indictment: the third impeachment

 

Gordon L. Weil

Set aside the endless flood of punditry and look through the eyes of jurors at the indictment of former President Donald Trump for trying to seize his reelection based on false fraud claims and violations of election laws.

When the case finally reaches its conclusion, 12 jurors in Washington, D.C., will decide if Trump is guilty or not of the crimes with which he is charged.  For them, the case could turn out to be relatively simple.

Most of the indictment consists of a detailed recitation of events involving the effort by Trump, Rudy Giuliani and other associates in trying to nullify votes cast for Joe Biden in several states.  They claimed that votes for Trump had been fraudulently changed or discarded and asked state officials or legislatures to strip Biden of his victory and replace him with Trump.

This single list of facts is used to support all charges.  Anyone who has followed Trump’s efforts between the November 2020 election and the January 2021 inauguration would find little that is unfamiliar in this list.  But the indictment discloses new details about meetings and conversations that support what was already known.

A principal focus of the recounting is the efforts in several states to create false panels of presidential electors whose names could be sent to Congress along with the official electors.  The intention was to create enough confusion that Congress could not designate the winner and would decline to select Biden.  Presumably, those states could then officially change their votes.

Behind the recitation of facts must be witnesses who will testify as to the truth of what the indictment states.  It’s most likely that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith took the time to line them up to testify.

The first task for jurors will be to determine if the actions took place and if Trump was directly involved in them.  That looks to be a relatively easy job, because it would be difficult for Trump to show that he had little or no involvement.

The second task will be for the jury to determine if the actions by Trump and his co-conspirators amounted to violations of the laws cited in the indictment. 

To support the grand jury charge that Trump knew he had lost and resorted to lying about the election, Smith relies on the former president having been told repeatedly by many trusted and high-ranking officials, almost all his own appointees, that he had lost.

Trump is expected to argue that he sincerely believed that he had won the election and that he was doing everything possible to produce the correct result.  Given the magnitude of the damage to the country of placing in office the wrong man, he had to resort to extreme measures to halt the confirmation of Biden as the next president. 

Trump claimed election fraud had occurred though no courts or state election authorities, some of them his Republican supporters, would agree with assertions that lacked evidence. In the process, did he violate federal and state laws and try to induce or threaten others to do so?

If Trump honestly believed he won, would he be justified in violating the law in the pursuit of a fair outcome of a presidential election?  His personal advisors told him that to save the Republic, he could break the law.

The indictment provides a detailed record of his efforts to convince and then threaten Mike Pence, the Vice President, to halt the electoral vote count or simply throw the result to him.  If Pence testifies, he could provide proof that Trump had violated the law at the highest level of government.

The former president is also expected to claim that what he said is protected by the First Amendment, thus completely immunizing him.  But Smith carefully avoided charging him with incitement, sticking instead to his acts and orders.  Also, free speech rights do not protect words that ask or direct others to commit crimes.  That amounts to conspiracy.

Trump charges that Biden is politicizing this case to weaken his re-election chances. But Trump himself politicizes it to stir up support among his loyal core and to raise campaign contributions that pay his legal costs.

Trump may believe that his public outrage at the charges could intimidate the judge and influence her decisions on the timing of the case.  If he can delay it until after an election he expects to win, then he might assume a presidential mantle of immunity even if convicted.

The fourth indictment count charges Trump with conspiring “to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States – that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”  That’s an impeachable charge.

Trump has been twice impeached and both times he has been acquitted by the Senate when Republicans refused to convict.  The indictment has become the third impeachment.

Those who will ultimately determine if Trump is guilty or not won’t be his Senate allies, but 12 average people.

 

Trump wants powers of America’s long-ago oppressor

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump’s critics sometimes compare him to a man whose name arouses a strongly negative reaction.

They usually refer to Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler, who used his 1933 democratic election to quickly end democracy. But Hitler was an historic monster, so that comparison goes too far.

The better parallel could see Trump as “The Man Who Would Be King,” told in Rudyard Kipling’s story about the failed hopes of a would-be ruler.

The king in question is King George III of Great Britain, a man we like to dislike. His despotic rule was rejected in 1776 by the 13 American colonies that created the independent United States of America.

Their Declaration of Independence is mostly a list of the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations.” Some of those charges work for Trump.

“He has incited domestic insurrections amongst us.” Whether Trump is finally held legally responsible for causing the January 6 assault on the Capitol, his followers there believed he wanted them to overturn the presidential election by force. He “incited” them to insurrection.

“He has combined with others, giving his assent to acts of pretended legislation.” Agreeing to the illegal creation of counterfeit presidential electors in several states, who were meant to displace the legal winners on January 6, is a prime case of “pretended legislation.”

“He has obstructed the administration of justice.” When public officials, who had sworn allegiance to the Constitution, did not follow his orders, he either fired them (U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, FBI Director James Comey) or threatened them (Brad Raffensberger, Georgia Secretary of State). He flouted a subpoena for presidential documents and hid them.

He was charged with “refusing to … encourage migration hither” to prevent population growth by new Americans. “Build the Wall!”

King George depended on his “divine right” to rule. The purpose of the Declaration and the Revolution was to replace the regal God-given authority with a government created by the people that could not be controlled by a single person.

The real Revolution was the democratic Constitution, created in a world almost totally dominated by countries under one person’s control. The balances struck between the federal government and the states and among the legislative, executive and judicial branches were meant to make royal-style rule impossible.

Now, Trump offers a different take on the Constitution. “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” he said while in office.

Article II of the Constitution states: “The executive power shall be invested in a President of the United States of America.” It does not say “all power” belongs to the president.

Article I states: “All legislative powers ... shall be vested in a Congress of the United States....” Congress makes the federal laws. Period. Article II requires the president “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That falls far short of “the right to do whatever I want as president.”

If elected in 2024, he proposes to act as if he has unlimited power. He has made clear that he would overrule the independent judgment of the Justice Department and regulatory agencies, refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress and replace thousands of civil service positions with his political appointees. And he would open an investigation of President Biden.

It seems that he expects to have a compliant Congress go along with his plans. If he and a Republican congressional majority are elected in 2024, he will take their joint victory as a sign that the public approves of his plans. That’s why he is stating his intentions now.

In effect, Trump’s intentions would amend the Constitution. While Congress has delegated many of its powers to executive agencies, it retains the right to define their authority and displace or eliminate them. None exists without congressional authority.

The former president’s view reflects the “unitary executive theory,” which would give him complete control over every agency of government. The theory has been around as long as the Constitution. President George W. Bush was a believer. Ignoring Congress and the courts, he signed new laws while saying parts of them were unconstitutional and he would not enforce them.

This form of government may fall just short of absolute royal power, so long as there are regular, free elections. Those in charge may change; today’s dominators may be tomorrow’s dominated.

As for free elections, Trump has claimed that he should be able to serve more than the constitutional two terms. Was it a joke? A trial balloon? Regal presidential status?

In more practical terms, Trump’s plans directly raise the issue of authoritarian versus democratic government. Should presidential elections give us leaders who do “whatever” they want or are subject to checks and balances? That could be the big question on the 2024 ballot.

Dems pulled to center by GOP right

 

Gordon L. Weil

Bernie Sanders is no longer a democratic socialist.  He has dropped that label on his website.

President Joe Biden has gone out of his way to say he is not a socialist, contrasting himself with Vermont Sen. Sanders.   The label has proved to be a political liability.

When Biden ran for president in 2020, he first defeated Sanders for the Democratic nomination.  Sanders was the leader of the left wing of the Democrats, while Biden ran as a moderate.  Now Sanders backs him.

That shift reflects the gradual move to the right of American politics.  In my last column, I focused on the Republicans as they have become more conservative.  This time, it is possible to see how the GOP’s apparent appeal may be drawing the Democrats away from the progressive left.

The Republicans have almost abandoned moderate positions, while the Democrats have moved somewhat more to the center, leaving progressives with the choice of accepting Biden’s practical politics or continuing with what may be self-defeating insistence on their positions.

Biden has scored some liberal wins, but the Democrats have accepted moderate policies in order to preserve their remarkable unity.  They protect the liberal democracy threatened by the hard right wing that now dominates the Republicans.

In his first two years, with a Democratic congressional majority, Biden gained victories on Covid relief, infrastructure, and the Inflation Reduction Act.  He received some GOP support.  In his third year, a Republican House majority harasses him and votes as a bloc against anything he proposes.

He has split the Republicans on support for Ukraine and challenged Democratic progressives by authorizing the sale to Ukraine of cluster bombs, outlawed by much of the international community.  He has not closed a major tax loophole benefiting the wealthy and or provided a competitive public option for Medicare.

The Democrats’ election vulnerability stems from its feeble responses to the GOP and Biden’s lack of charisma.  Their strength comes from Biden’s legislative activism and their unity, caused by the threat of a second Trump presidency. 

Conservative Republicans won’t compromise with the Democrats, because they believe their policies will prevail in 2024.   Pragmatic Democratic moderates believe they can succeed through policies that increase middle class incomes and potential gains among disaffected Republicans.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills may be the model of the right-of-center Democrat who can cater to some GOP interests without losing progressives.

On the progressive side, her advocacy of easing abortion restrictions has wide appeal and is taken as a sign of the state’s liberalism.  She supported paid family leave including a payroll tax increase, displeasing business, because she knew it would win if it went to a referendum.

Mills opposed allowing Maine’s Indians to enjoy federal benefits, even opposing her party’s legislative leadership and showing some innate conservatism.  Similarly, on off-shore wind power development, she was willing to allow labor unions, the Democrats’ natural allies, a preferential shot at only about half the jobs.

And she was lukewarm about the development of a public defender system for poor defendants and did not allow the Legislature to send out the public power to referendum, leaving it up to a people’s petition.  In effect, she moved away from traditional Democratic positions.

Mills and Second District Rep. Jared Golden may be the wave of the future for Democrats. Last week, Golden was only one of four Democrats to join House Republicans in voting for a military spending bill containing a provision designed to cut back on Defense Department outlays for abortions, though the version of the budget will not pass.

Clearly, Mills often takes positions favorable to business, based on the claim that they promote economic development and outside investment.  They include her support for the major new electric transmission line, coolness to public power and her stance on wind generator labor.

The Democrats may not have ceased being liberals, but they increasingly reach out to business interests traditionally associated with the GOP.  That’s one big reason the president has taken to campaigning about the success of “Bidenomics.” 

As they move to the right, the Republicans may put into play traditional economic allies, which care relatively little about the conservatives’ wedge issues compared with their traditional concerns about regulation, taxes and the state of the economy.

Biden may also have an eye on the No Labels movement, which could run a third-party candidate in the presidential election.  It claims to be centrist, taking pro-business positions, while opposing some Democratic policies.  If West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin joins No Labels and some fellow Democrats follow, it could enhance Trump’s chances.

If 2024 will be a test for the Republican right’s faith in wedge issues and Biden attacks, it will also test if Democrats can maintain and expand their moderate-progressive unity.

Liberal democracy retreats as politics take a right turn

 

Gordon L. Weil

The world is taking a right turn.

Even when parties clash on policy, their shared values can yield practical results through compromise. But now, conservatives increasingly reject compromise, jeopardizing shared values.

Liberal democracy may be retreating. It emerged from the adoption of social welfare policies and the defeat of fascism by American and European democracies. Once widely accepted, it is now openly challenged.

Listen to Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister idolized by some American conservatives. His country has lived under a monarchy, Nazism and Communism, and he now proclaims, “We have replaced a shipwrecked liberal democracy.” He labels his new form of government “illiberal democracy,” which amounts to an elected dictatorship with no need to compromise.

Orban’s views are extreme, but many conservatives favor smaller and more authoritarian government, lower taxes, and fewer foreign commitments. They believe that only by being uncompromising, contrary to the practices of liberal democracy, can they gain control.

Even in Maine, this way of thinking is appearing.

Unless two-thirds of the Legislature agrees on a state budget, a version adopted by a simple majority and signed by the governor must be delayed for 90 days. That’s what happened this year with the basic budget. But hopes remained for a supermajority to adopt the supplemental budget.

The minority Republicans and the majority Democrats had conflicting legislative goals. They reached a compromise with some GOP gains, but the majority unsurprisingly dominated the result. The 13-member bipartisan Appropriations Committee sent the agreed budget to the House and Senate with the opposition of only one Republican.

The compromise budget, enjoying the support of Republican leaders, was expected to get the required supermajority. Then, GOP House members rebelled against a budget that had been negotiated by their own picked representatives. The House GOP leader had to abandon them.

Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham said that efforts had been made at compromise. “But at the end of the day, I listen to my caucus, and I answer to them.” With remarkable honesty, he reported that he had accepted its refusal to agree. The GOP required even more concessions to add to their major win on highway funding, which should reduce taxes.

In the final tally, the compromise budget received only three GOP votes. Two came from members of the Committee, veterans of political compromise politics who stuck by their position and the third was by the Senate GOP leader.

Maine Republicans in the Legislature had openly shed the shared values of compromise for partisan conflict. Their backs may have stiffened when the Democrats led in adopting liberal legislation on abortion and gender.

This situation revealed much about the Republican Party. While there may be more degrees of conservatism at the national level, the split between party factions was revealed by the Maine budget switch.

Nationally, the GOP is composed of four elements: Trump loyalists, the hard or extreme right, strong conservatives and moderate or economic conservatives.

The Trump loyalists are attached to Donald Trump (and possibly to any successor named Trump). They can be understood as an ultra-loyal cult or at least an ardent fan club. Wherever he leads on policy, they follow. If he is found legally guilty of anything, they would see him as the victim of a plot.

The hard right places partisanship above political responsibility. They not only disagree with Democrats; they want to destroy Democrats. This leads to conspiracy theories and endless attempts to discredit their opponents. Social media lies are their weapons. Autocratic government is their goal. They are the Orban people.

Strong conservatives will fight on wedge issues like abortion, gender identity and gun control, and also support voter suppression and more emphasis on religious rights. They demand smaller government and lower taxes. They want to reduce government aid programs for the poor and disadvantaged.

Traditional conservatives want lower taxes and reduced regulation, which they see as standing in the way of economic growth. The business wing of the party, they are less concerned about social issues than other conservatives. They are willing to seek compromises with Democrats. Among Republicans, they are fading out. The Maine budget vote showed that happening.

The growth of the hard right and strong conservatism is not limited to the U.S. The right turn has been seen in the end of U.K. membership in the EU. Italy, Israel, Sweden and France have all seen a surge of parties on the right.

In the U.S., the split between strongly conservative states and other states following more traditional politics is becoming increasingly obvious, shown by contrasting red and blue states.

Conservative Republicans want to give voters a clear choice, undiluted by compromise. They believe that’s the way to win. The 2024 elections, with or without Trump, may provide the key test for the powerful Republican right.

Supreme Court reactions: Too much heat, too little light

Gordon L. Weil

More has been said about what’s wrong with recent Supreme Court decisions than about what the decisions said.  Snap analyses have amounted to spreading half-true and often biased explanations to people who don’t read the opinions.

On one side are liberals, including justices, who give the clear impression that the Court is political, acting like a legislature, and under the control of conservative zealots.  On the other side are conservatives, who like the decisions and claim victory.

Beyond question, the Court’s majority on some major issues is composed of conservative justices. They show that there is no objective law, but rather that the Constitution and laws are subject to their mindset.  Recent controversial cases reveal how justices look at the same facts, but reach conflicting conclusions. That’s normal, and the criticism may go too far.

In one case, a cake maker who designs special sweets for customers sought to refuse any client who wanted a cake decorated for a same-sex wedding.  The designer’s religious beliefs oppose such marriages, and they wanted to conform to these teachings.  But Colorado state law bans discriminating among customers.

The Court ruled that requiring the designer to prepare such a custom cake violated their freedom of speech because the government would make them express themselves over their objection. The decision only affected design work, and did not overrule the Colorado law requiring the designer to sell any standard cake to any customer no matter its ultimate use.

The criticism of this decision was that it allowed a person’s religious belief to displace the Fourteenth Amendment requirement for equal protection of the law. The Court majority effectively decided that a First Amendment free speech right should be given more weight than that Fourteenth Amendment right.

While about a religious objection, the decision was not about religion. Suppose the designer was the descendant of a Holocaust victim and refused to place a swastika on a cake for a fascist customer.  Would opponents of the cake case decision feel the same?

In another controversial decision, the majority ruled against affirmative action in college admissions. Race by itself could not be used simply to increase the diversity of the student body.

The conservative majority noted that the universities in the case had offered no evidence that diversity produced superior academic results.  The advocates of affirmative action may believe that diversity in itself has an obvious educational value. 

The Court ruled that the relevance of a person’s race to their own life could be taken into account, but that admitting people to achieve racial balance should not be allowed.  That could amount to illegal discrimination negatively affecting applicants denied admission.  Colleges could neither deny nor offer admission based on race

After this decision, colleges could still end up with similar diversity through their individual admissions selections.  And the Court’s decision will affect only a handful of the nation’s thousands of colleges.

Another case focused on President Biden’s attempt to wipe out $430 billion in student loans using a law passed after 9/11, giving the president extra emergency powers. He had suspended loan payments during the Covid pandemic and proposed to use the terrorism law to make the suspension permanent.

The Court majority said the president could not undertake such massive spending, even for a worthy purpose, without express congressional approval.  The minority claimed that the majority had invented a new rule to reach this conclusion. That’s a legal question open to debate.

What would have been the reaction if President Trump had chosen to use his emergency authority under this law to build the wall along the Mexican border?  Wouldn’t there have been objections that he lacked such authority and could not use the 9/11 law to cover his favored spending?

In all these cases, it’s worth remembering there may be a difference between what you see as right and what is legal. 

The Court’s conservatism seems increasingly political, especially given Justice Samuel Alito’s public speeches.   In recent years, justices on both sides have become highly and rudely critical of one another.  That increases the appearance of partisanship and not judicial neutrality.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, is making some effort to close the gap.  He is putting space between himself and the extreme conservatives. But he resists a code of ethics for the Court and tolerates the political activism of some justices.

The Court’s controversial opinions reveal the false assurances by judicial nominees who tell Congress they will stick to the law. What’s the law?  Elect a conservative president and their appointees will probably produce conservative interpretations of the law.

When people are polled about major issues, they often cite the economy or immigration in determining who they support for president.  If they fail to focus on the Court, they may get decisions they don’t like.

 

Major events dominate historic June: From Putin to Supreme Court

 

Gordon L. Weil

June may turn out to have been an especially historic month.

Unusually, at least five events took place that are changing the U.S. and the world.  Amazingly, only one of them was related to a current armed conflict and, in that case, not a single member of the American military was under fire.  The historic almost became so routine as to almost miss being noticed.

The event related to war that drew worldwide notice was the uprising against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his fumbling military.  Despite his efforts to restore its former role as a world power, Russia was finally revealed as the second-rate dependency of China that it has become.

Putin had parlayed his mistakes into an epic loss.  He believed Ukraine would collapse with only a small push, that the West would not support Ukraine and that he had tamed Europe by making it dependent on Russia’s energy.  Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Suddenly, a Russian election may mean something.  Next year, a presidential election there may find Putin open to challenge.  While he can still try to throttle the opposition, ranging from repressive to reform, his success is no longer assured. 

This month, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinkin delivered to China an American message placing clear limits on what would be tolerated.  While acknowledging that the two huge economies both benefit from a good relationship, the U.S. stressed that it would not sell out its vital interests for the sake of that linkage.

He told the Chinese leadership that its shipments of the raw materials of fentanyl to Mexican drug cartels were seen as an attempt to undermine American society by promoting drug dependency.  Such exports to criminal elements were hostile acts undermining hopes for improved relations.  Arrests followed.

Despite China’s attempts to scare off American naval and air forces from the China Sea, the U.S. made clear that it would not recognize Chinese claims that the Sea was its internal waters.  Much of world trade passes through this international sea, and the U.S. and its Asian allies would keep it that way.  It’s now up to China to decide on further confrontation.

In both the U.S. and the U.K., the mighty were in the process of falling.  The British Parliament made history when it forced out Boris Johnson, a former prime minister, who had arrived with a strong electoral mandate but left in disgrace. He even lost his special pass into the building.

The action, which included his own party, was an impressive example of the strength of democracy.  The government continued to function without facing either a Capitol-style insurrection or mutiny à la Russe.   The prevailing calm almost obscured the political history.

Donald Trump, who tried too hard to hold onto the presidency and its powers, could not miss that justice was beginning to close in on him.  The public could listen to the tape of him describing papers he held on Iran policy options as laid out by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He admitted that he was no longer president and the papers were classified.

He had led “Lock her up” chants about Hilary Clinton, his 2016 presidential rival and the missing emails on her private computer.  How could he distinguish between the two of them?  His presidential campaign coffers became the source of funding for his legal defense, revealing that the legal case was his true campaign.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s conservative solidarity began to show cracks.  Finding itself increasingly at odds with the public and with its members subject to ethics challenges, the Court began to show some signs of change.

The Court turned a corner in congressional redistricting cases.  Alabama had laid out districts that distributed African Americans so they could win no more than one House seat.  The state argued that, no matter its effect, discrimination had not been the intent of the districting law.

Previously, the justices had insisted on openly racist intent before they would overrule state districting.  That was virtually impossible to prove.  Now the Court majority has found that the Voting Rights Act allowed them to look into effect, so long as it did not impose strict proportionality.  Alabama was sent back for a redo.

But there was more.  After allowing Louisiana to create only one Black district in 2022, the Court opened the way for two such districts in 2024.  Finally, it rejected conservative claims that state legislatures could ignore state court rulings that block political gerrymandering.

Any of these June events was big news.  Together that made major history that almost got lost as one story piled on the other and other events, from abortion to immigration, captured public and political attention.

But, to paraphrase a long ago television comedy show: “That was the month that was.”

 

A tale of two political “witch hunts”: Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

It looks like the same thing is happening on both sides of the Atlantic.  Or maybe not.

In the U.K., the country’s political leader has been forced from office for lying about his own lawbreaking.  In the U.S., the country’s once and possibly future political leader faces criminal charges for lying about his own lawbreaking.

As similar as the situations may seem, there are a couple of major differences.  In the comparison, the U.S. seems to come in second to the Brits.

When he was prime minister, Boris Johnson laid out strict rules for responding to the Covid pandemic.  They prohibited large gatherings and required social distancing.  The result was that when Covid killed a parent, the children could be banned from holding a funeral.

While the public obeyed, the prime minister and his government staged parties and ignored the rules. When their partying was revealed, for the first time ever, a prime minister faced police punishment and paid fines for attending.  But he repeatedly assured Parliament that, despite his behavior, no rules had been broken.

Strong evidence revealed that his statements were dubious.  A neutral government review official found he had broken his own rules, and he was forced to step down as prime minister.  He remained a Member of Parliament, primed to make a comeback when, as he expected, his successor faltered.

A special parliamentary committee then looked into whether he had lied to the House of Commons. The committee included a majority of his fellow Conservatives and was chaired by a member from the opposition Labor Party.

In its unanimous report, the committee found that he had lied to Parliament and recommended he lose his seat. He promptly resigned from the House, while attacking what he called the committee’s “witch hunt.”  In an overwhelming House vote to approve the report, many in his party joined the opposition parties in condemning him.  Only seven opposed the report.

Most Conservatives did not vote.  While not formally opposing Johnson, the nonvoters also declined to support him.

The Conservatives who voted placed loyalty to Parliament ahead of support for their former leader.  They acknowledged that he had lied, even though he had led them to an overwhelming victory in the last elections.  His own party probably killed any chance for his comeback.

The decision to protect the integrity of the House was made by the House itself.  The political system could restore itself, when it set aside partisan politics.  Johnson’s few supporters vented, because they knew they could not win.

In the U.S., President Trump was twice impeached by the House of Representatives, but not convicted by the Senate.  In the second case, focusing on Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol insurrection, for the first time in history any senator of an impeached president’s own party voted to convict him.  Otherwise, pure partisanship prevailed.

Out of office, Trump has been criminally charged with taking with him after his term highly classified documents and falsely claiming that he had returned them all.  He has attacked the Special Prosecutor handling the case, calling it a “witch hunt.”  He may face additional charges of having caused the insurrection and using illegal methods to overturn his election defeat.

Like Johnson, Trump has taken no responsibility for his actions and repeatedly was misleading about them.  Unlike Johnson’s Conservatives, Trump’s Republicans will not put aside partisan support for their celebrity leader and accept the political risk, even if such action would protect the integrity of Congress and the presidency. 

In Britain, Parliament provided a political solution to a political problem, but partisanship makes that impossible in the U.S.  Now, facing charges in court, Trump and his allies seek to politicize the independent judicial system by falsely accusing President Biden of directing the Justice Department to prosecute the former president.

In short, Trump’s Republicans block political solutions made by political institutions while trying to discredit the judiciary by claiming the legal process is itself political, though without any evidence.  If they can succeed, they could undermine trust in government.

The three branches of government are meant to keep a check on one another.  That process is supposed to promote public confidence in the constitutional system.  If government is now boiling down to control by the supporters of a single person with authoritarian views, public confidence will erode.

Public opinion seems to have lost respect for Congress and is losing respect for the courts. The American system was intended to prevent the domination of an unquestioned leader through a system that would protect a broad and diverse public interest.  Yet Trump asserts his right to almost unlimited power.

In Britain, the target of the American Revolution, Parliament appears to have accepted the idea of government accountability found in the U.S. Constitution.  Americans risk losing it.