Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Jan. 6 hearings remind reformers of Trump’s pattern of disregarding democracy

Jan. 6 committee hearing

A video of former President Donald Trump is seen on a screen during a hearing to Investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump’s disregard of legitimate electoral outcomes has been on public display for the past week, conjuring memories of his first impeachment and reminding democracy advocates of his willingness to break democratic norms.

On Monday, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol held its second public hearing, as some Trump allies and members of his campaign team testified that they had advised him to not declare a victory on election night.

Trump nevertheless went on to claim the election had been stolen from him and held a “Stop the steal” rally the day Congress was scheduled to certify the election. The insurrection followed on the heels of that rally.

“Trump’s lies continued to stoke the anger of his staunchest supporters – anger that he would turn loose on the Capitol on January 6, in an effort to overturn the election he lost by force,” said Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn.

Others drew a parallel between Trump’s unfounded claims of fraud and his dealings with Ukraine in July 2019.


Trump’s first impeachment centered on an inquiry into his phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he appeared to have asked for assistance finding information on Joe Biden in exchange for military support. Although he was acquitted, Trump’s actions as president would continue to raise allegations of corruption, including possible tax evasion and election tampering.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In fact, the Jan. 6 hearings are the third attempt to investigate possible corruption by the former president.

“His entire presidency is a clear indication that he believes himself to be above the law,” said Lisa Gilbert, vice president and co-founder of the Not Above the Law Coalition. The call to Ukraine was “one of the numerous instances of [Trump’s] breaking of ethical norms and mores.”

McGeehee, who was executive director of the crosspartisan advocacy group Issue One before launching her own consulting firm, said “the Ukrainian call became part of a pattern where we had a president who really failed in that aspect” of putting the interests of the nation over his own.

While the Jan. 6 hearings are intended to hold him accountable in a political sense where the two impeachments failed, McGeehee believes that any attempt to criminally indict Trump could end disastrously for a deeply divided country. Trump’s supporters believe themselves to be on “a moral crusade” for the former president.

In the aftermath of the Trump presidency and in the midst of a pandemic, public trust is at a low point, with about three-fourths of U.S. adults concerned about American democracy, according to a recent poll by YouGov. McGeehee highlighted that fragile state of democracy, explaining that high inflation and extreme polarization are historical markers of instability but noted that Republicans are participating in the hearings too.

“There's a reason that this is bipartisan, this hearing,” she said. “You know, people on both sides of the aisle understand that it is incredibly problematic to tell lies in the public square, and to in turn, have those lies incite violence.”

Gilbert, who is also the executive vice president of progressive consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, also found some solace in the committee’s work.

“I think that the importance of these hearings is showing bipartisan cooperation and sharing facts, shocking facts, with regular people,” she said, hoping the hearings will “lead to accountability for the bad actors, as well as reforms to improve our system moving forward.”

The committee had been planning to hold another hearing Wednesday but it was delayed by technical issues. The next hearing will be conducted Thursday.

Read More

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

Presidential Immunity: History and Background

Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape

With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.

Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Devaluing Truth Makes America Weak

Blocks with letters on them, spelling out "Fake" or "Fact".

Getty Images, Constantine Johnny

Devaluing Truth Makes America Weak

Truth matters. You wouldn’t know that from watching the president address Congress earlier this month. The assault on truth since January has been breathtaking. The removal of data from government websites, the elevation of science deniers to positions in charge of scientific policy, and the advancement of health policy that flies in the face of scientific evidence are only the tip of the iceberg. We are watching a disaster in the making: Our leaders are all falling in line with a program that prioritizes politics and power over American success. But, we ignore the truth at our own peril—reality has a way of getting our attention even if we look the other way.

As a philosophy professor, my discipline’s attention to truth has never seemed more relevant than today. Although, there may be disagreement about the ultimate nature of truth, even the most minimal theory agrees that truth requires alignment with the way the world is. It is neither negotiable nor unimportant. Devaluing the importance of truth is a fool’s game, and it is incompatible with American success. It makes us weak and vulnerable; epidemics, deaths, and unrest will follow.

Keep ReadingShow less