Early notes on the political response to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump

As Jim Wright says, “Don't make it worse. Don't spread rumors and speculation. Regard all unconfirmed reports with skepticism. Await more validated information.” So instead, I am looking at historical, not to mention hysterical, parallels.

The reactions I am seeing remind me of the historical reaction to the Reichstag fire. As far as anyone knows for certain, the fire was set by a lone wolf terrorist, but the Nazis immediately claimed it was the result of a Communist! Conspiracy! and the Communists claimed it was a Nazi! Conspiracy! To this day no-one knows if either claim is true.

The following day, German chancellor Paul von Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree (similar to an executive order in the USA), severely limiting German civil liberties. Mass arrests of German Communists followed. A month after the fire, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act of 1933, transferring law-making authority to the Nazi-dominated German cabinet. This is analogous to, though not exactly the same as, the Trump v. United States Supreme Court decision.

Which leaves us – where?

I think we can expect some sort of authoritarian response on the part of the House Republican Conference. The Senate Democratic majority is small, and some members might break and vote with Republicans. Would Senate Majority Leader Schumer filibuster such a bill against his own caucus? President Biden is likely to veto it, and I doubt there would be the votes to override a veto. Still, the fear of death might produce actions we cannot foresee.

The various Trump-supporting factions of the public: “Constitutional” sheriffs, paramilitaries, and so on, will be up in arms. I think we can expect intensified police action against protesters, regardless of the law.

Finally, the effect on Trump himself. Has he ever actually engaged in physical combat? There is going to be some effect, probably dramatic, and he is not a peaceful man.

PS: There were threats directed at the press at the rally. I think there will be more threats against Trump's critics. Republican leaders are already asking that charges against Trump be dropped and various media figures are advising Democrats to tone down the rhetoric.

Notes on Trump v. United States

“It is folly to think that the triumph of evil could ever be a winning side, in the sense of anyone's gaining anything by it.” – James Blish

This past Fourth I celebrated the fight to restore democracy, the fight to end the imperial presidency, and the hope of a second reconstruction.

The Court's right wing, or at least their patrons, knows that Trump has already committed serious crimes, and that is why they have ruled in favor of broad presidential immunity. One immediate consequence of the Trump immunity decision is that the Trump campaign no longer has to spend money on Trump's legal defense.

Under Trump v. US, a President will be able to loot the treasury with impunity. Trump has also been immunized against treason, which he has likely committed. Just as the biggest beneficiaries of Citizens United have been wealthy foreign governments, the biggest beneficiary here may well be Russia. Biden is now more or less in the position of Lincoln. I hope he rises to the occasion. We now have a constitutional crisis which will not be resolved by the Courts. We need a Second Reconstruction and Second Reconstruction constitutional amendments. But first, we have to get through this constitutional crisis.

Presidential immunity is mostly of value to a president who commits crimes. The rule of law cannot be restored by breaking the law. We are now operating in a space where there is no law and, assuming we win, we will have to put everything back together when we are done, a second reconstruction.

John Roberts' place in history is secure. I think I'll start calling him Roger Taney II.