Skip to main content

Our Side is Not Exactly Shooting Blanks

 

There has been, of late, a deep dread circulating among Democrats pondering the gloomy prospect of a second Trump presidency.

It’s hard to blame them. Despite an unusually good economy and a general prosperity we had no right to expect, incipient feelings of pessimism are being shamelessly stoked by the media.

Each day, we’re showered with stories ominously portending a Trump-led coup. They invite us to cower at the thought of Trumpian storm troopers determined to capture the government, jail their enemies, replace the entire civil service, and flip a collective middle finger at NATO. They conjure terrifying images of forced-birth camps for women, deportation camps for immigrants, and concentration camps for gays, Jews, Muslims, and all people of color. Which is more camping than most of us want to do.

But I think we need to take a breath.

Because no matter how I parse the inputs I’m getting, I cannot conceive of a reasonable scenario where Donald Trump wins a free and fair election.

True, Republicans have no interest in either free or fair, let alone reasonable. True, the electoral college remains a danger to democracy. And true, we are still at the mercy of six or seven volatile swing states, where the electoral climate is changeable at best, corruptible at worst.

Still, I see little sign — even in the hysteria-infused polls — that Trump has picked up any new votes since his massive fail in 2020. On the other hand, I see plenty of signs that he’s losing significant numbers of lifelong Republicans, people upset at the wreckage of their party and the endangerment of their women, probably in that order.

I look at states like Ohio, Kansas, and Wisconsin, where the abortion issue has recently turned red people blue in massive numbers, at least temporarily. These voters demonstrated not just that they were paying attention, not just that they understood what was at stake in their various elections, but also that they were adept at filtering out the blizzard of lies being spread by their own Republican-run administrations. They were not bamboozled.

Do we really expect the abortion issue to be less potent in a presidential year? Do we really expect the electorate to be less concerned than it was in the midterm? Has Trump done anything to make himself less odious to the people who voted him down last time?

If everyone who voted to preserve abortion rights in those states were to give a thumbs-down to the Republicans who removed those rights, would it be enough to turn a swing state blue? We’ll see.

But none of this augurs well for Trump. He is looking at a world of hurt if he loses again, which means he’ll be cornered, which means he’ll be dangerous, which means that the next question is what if the election isn’t fair?

What if Republicans can indeed game the system? What if they can indeed use the next election to pull some sort of coup? They have access, after all, to enormous financial resources they can spend on electoral subterfuge. And their capacity for cheating is prodigious.

But let’s take a moment to remember that the current administration is in the hands of adults. Unlike in 2020, experienced technocrats are once again at the reins of the executive branch, including the entire apparatus of law enforcement and prosecution. They have powerful tools they can use, and in perfectly legal ways, to defend democratic institutions.

I find it inconceivable that there would be nobody in the administration thinking about this. From Joe Biden on down, these are thousands of extremely capable people with their hands on the levers of government. They read what we read. They perceive what we perceive. They must surely be as alarmed as we are. Do we think they’re not thinking, in their own way, of what they can do to turn back any assaults on the system?

The rap on Democratic political figures — going back decades — is that they’re too wimpy, too reluctant to fight, too gullible in the face of Republican treachery. But while it’s true they may have fired their share of blanks in the past, I think we’re looking at a different party now — angrier, more cynical, more street-smart, and far more intelligent than the GOP dimwits that are causing all the trouble.

Plus, they have the law on their side.

Keep in mind, it is a near certainty that any number of Republican operatives will be committing crimes between now and election day. They can’t win any other way, and they are signalling their intentions, more-or-less openly. It’s hard not to think of it as empty bluster, but presumably the federal law enforcement community is on to them. The more they misbehave, the more exposed they’ll be to investigation, arrest, and prosecution.

This is by no means a sure thing. But I think it more likely than not that the closer we get to the election, the more aggressive this administration will get in defense of democratic government.

And we might not even see it. We have no idea what DOJ may or may not have investigated since the adults have been back in charge. We have no idea how many sealed indictments they may already have filed — indictments that even the targets don’t know about. DOJ does not play out its hand in public.

But we do know, just from the public record, that there have been plenty of Republicans to investigate, and plenty already investigated. We know the Jan 6 Committee hearings pointed fingers directly at Jim Jordan, Roger Stone, Scott Perry, Matt Gaetz, Marjory Taylor Greene, Michael Flynn, and who knows how many other bent GOP operatives. They’ve not been indicted, at least not yet, but there can be no doubt that extensive files are open on all of them.

We’re less clear about the files on people like Kash Patel, Sean Hannity, Ginni Thomas, Leonard Leo — and, for that matter, at least three Supreme Court justices. All of these people have long taken impunity for granted. The list of GOP operatives who have arguably broken serious laws — whether they’ve been prosecuted or not — is virtually endless.

I’m guessing — and I hope I’m right — that any or all of these miscreants could be brought up on formal charges at any time, even if those charges don’t ultimately stick. The fact that DOJ has not made such moves doesn’t mean it can’t, or that it won’t. It has broad powers of arrest at its disposal, especially if it sees clear attempts to interfere in the next election. The only question is whether these powers will actually be used, and how.

If the likes of Jack Smith and Fanni Willis are any indication, there is no shortage of career prosecutors still angry from the Trump-Barr years. They seem actively engaged in preserving the current legal system, and they’re well-positioned to see when that system is being subverted. Surely they understand the threat at least as well as we do.

There are ample tools within our current set of laws to prevent government capture, and to do so without resorting to such extreme measures as the Insurrection Act. There is also the naïve ineptness of the coup plotters, whose cavalier attitude towards the law could ultimately prove their undoing.

We don’t know where all this is going. But between the badass prosecutors with chips on their shoulders and the dimwitted MAGA loons with zero understanding of the laws they’re breaking, we have every reason to expect that both groups will be getting to know each other well in the coming year. And we get to watch.

 

 

Comments

  1. My only fear is that, backed too far into the corner, all the loons have left is their gun-toting constituents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question then becomes whether those constituents are as suicidal as they are stupid.

      Delete
  2. Just gullible enough to be convinced they can win. I wouldn't put it past Trump to attempt another armed insurrection when all else inevitably fails.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I fear that arresting political operatives such as M Flynn or Sean Hannity for evidence they might interfere in an election would not be supported as a matter of law, would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly would violate fundamental Constitutional rights. What is the line between hard electioneering and "interference." This

    Such hyped-up anger-driven back-and-forth using the DOJ's criminal enforcement powers could send the country's political atmospher further "down Argentina way." I don't think Garland would want any part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said, I expect these people to break real laws, carrying real penalties. A lot already have. They do the crime, but they don't expect to do the time. Changing that expectation need not involve extending any powers that aren't already in common practice. Criminals get arrested every day. What's the problem?

      Delete
    2. I agree. They expect to do heinous shit and not be held to account "because." Because why? Their fat-ass, slime-covered figurehead, the vile and hateful Trump says they can get away with it like he has. It is time for them to brought down HARD. Why are the Trumpadumpas so afraid of Trump? Do they fear a bizarre nickname? Whaty power do they think this shithead has?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Six Things Every American Needs to Know About Trump

  When it comes to Trump, piling on is a civic duty. We cannot afford to allow him even the slightest chance of retaking power. He needs to be overwhelmed. Simon Rosenberg — the veteran political analyst who famously predicted that the Red Wave of 2020 would be the Republican debacle it turned out to be — is urging a practical, grassroots approach to the problem. He is openly optimistic about the Democrats’ prospects this year, but he wants us all to be smart about it. He's especially concerned about getting information to the depressing percentage of the public who have no real grasp of who Trump really is, let alone the clear and present danger he represents. Right now, they are not paying attention, but Rosenberg wants us to be ready when they are, and to have at our command “ The Six Things Americans Are Going To Learn About Trump They Didn’t Know in 2020.” There’s nothing new here, but seeing it in one place is valuable. Think of it as a starter set o

The Origin Story of the Pro-Death Movement

  Two weeks ago, I excoriated the New York Times for its heavy hand in election coverage, for compulsively favoring the horserace over the survival of the American Experiment. Of course, no sooner had I done that then they published the sort of eye-opening exposé that few journalistic organizations have the resources to pull off anymore. Which only served to underscore what we’ve been missing from the Times in this year of hair-raising silliness. It was a long and depressing article about the behind-the-scenes machinations that led to the fall of Roe v. Wade . It tells of a loose but vast movement of religious zealots, reactionary lawyers, and red-state legislators who saw the election of Donald Trump as the moment they’d been waiting for. Think of them as the pro-death movement: [T]hey had built an elite legal and ideological ecosystem of activists, organizations, lawmakers and pro bono lawyers around their cause. Their policy arms churned out legal argument