Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It had to be this bad

It had to be this bad
Getty Images

Goldstone’s latest book is “Not White Enough: The Long, Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment.” Learn more at www.lawrencegoldstone.com.

Well, Donald Trump was not accused of standing in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shooting someone, an act that he once bragged would not cause him to lose voters.


But he came close.

He has been accused of blithely sitting in Mar a Lago or Bedminster and potentially causing American clandestine agents to be shot, or worse, in the countries in which they risk their lives and freedom to help protect the United States. He was accused of a good deal more, of course, including compromising nuclear secrets, revealing war plans, and treating the nation’s most closely guarded intelligence as personal playthings.

He has yet to be brought to trial for any of these offenses, but the level of detail in the 49-page indictment is remarkable, complete with photographs, verbatim transcripts of text messages, and grand jury testimony by his former lawyer, who was required to break the otherwise sacrosanct attorney-client privilege under what is known as the “crime-fraud” exception.

Given what he felt comfortable storing in a bathroom or on the stage of a ballroom, Trump’s handling of classified material could easily have represented a bigger risk to national security than, say, what Robert Hanssen gave to the Russians; and Hanssen just died while serving a life sentence in America’s most harsh and secure prison.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It was, then, fair to speculate on how members of the Republican Party, to whom national security and law and order used to be mantras, would react. Would they finally realize that maybe, just maybe, it was time to place the good of the country above pandering to what is euphemistically called “the base,” or would they continue to kowtow to a man who openly treats bootlickers with contempt?

Sadly, to the surprise of almost no one, they chose the latter and defended him, sort of.

Kevin McCarthy fumed, “Today is indeed a dark day for the United States of America. It is unconscionable for a President to indict the leading candidate opposing him,” neglecting to note that Biden had absolutely no role in the affair. Then he vowed, “I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump against this grave injustice. House Republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable.”

Ted Cruz lamented, “I have to say today is a very sad day in American history. It is a shameful day in American history. It is a disgraceful day in American history,” not because a former president had behaved so dishonorably, but that he was being called to account for it. An “assault on democracy” is how Cruz described the behavior of a special counsel who had made his reputation prosecuting war criminals.

Another of the usual suspects, Josh Hawley, sighed, “This is not about Donald Trump ultimately; this is about the United States of America. This is about whether the Constitution is still real in this country. This is about whether any American, any American can expect the due process of law.” Of course, due process of law was precisely what Trump is receiving.

Still, conspicuous by its absence in all of these righteously indignant denunciations is the most obvious defense of all for the former president.

That he is innocent.

Not one of his defenders has said he or she believes Trump is not guilty of the charges. Quite the reverse—almost all of these responses strongly imply they are certain he is guilty. The strongest defense they have offered is that everyone—except Hillary Clinton and the Bidens, of course—is innocent until proven guilty, the sort of thing a high-priced defense lawyer tells the press about a dead-to-rights client like John Gotti or Bernie Madoff.

But guilty or innocent, these Republicans are demonstrating their commitment to the rule of law and equal justice by insisting that Trump not be prosecuted because...from there it gets a bit vague.

Some think the case should not go forward because Trump is a political figure, a man who is running again for president, likely to keep himself out of jail. Others think he should not be prosecuted because Hillary Clinton was not, forgetting that she was investigated by multiple Republican-led agencies, none of which recommended that charges be brought. Still others think Trump should escape prosecution because the FBI is corrupt and favors Democrats, failing to add that the FBI is traditionally one of the most right-wing organizations in the United States and that every single director in its history, including the current one, has been a Republican.

A final rationale is the most damning and was trotted out during Trump’s two impeachments as well. It asserts that Trump should not be prosecuted, no matter what his crimes, because of the irreparable damage it would inflict on the country, the same argument that was made for not prosecuting senior officials of the Catholic Church for failing to expose child molesters.

In the end, Republicans’ reasoning is all too apparent. They don’t want Trump to be prosecuted because it threatens their jobs. Without Trump’s voters, they have no chance of winning the presidency in 2024, holding the House, or taking the Senate. They well know that if they do not sufficiently kiss Trump’s…ring…he is likely to do everything he can to destroy those who slighted him, which will doom the party to another defeat.

Since once again, Republicans have chosen to stand by a man who could be sentenced to prison—and deserve it—the nation has only one place to look in the hopes that the lofty ideals politicians are so fond of spouting will, even to some small degree, reflect the actual country Americans live in.

Voters.

Which is why the charges needed to be as serious as they are. If what Trump was being charged with was in any way technical or relied on legal gymnastics, his bleats of victimization might actually strike a chord. But these charges are clear: here was a man who so needed to show off that he was happy to put both his country and those who support it at risk, in some cases at risk of their lives.

Republicans who continue to support Trump are hoping that a combination of faux outrage, short memories, and fealty to a potential felon will allow them to prevail in 2024.

Those American voters who think more of the country than they do have the opportunity to prove them wrong.

Read More

Presidential promises, promises, promises....

Former President Donald J. Trump answers question from Pastor Paula White-Cain at the National Faith Advisory Board summit in Powder Springs, Georgia, United States on October 28, 2024.

(Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Presidential promises, promises, promises....

When Donald Trump made his first successful run for president in 2016, he made 663 promises to American voters. By the end of his 2021 term of office, he could only fulfill approximately 23 percent of his vows. Before we get too excited as to what will happen when Trump 2.0 takes effect on Jan. 20, let’s take a moment to reflect on covenants made by a couple of other presidents.

PolitiFact tracks the promises our presidents have made. PolitiFact is a non-partisan fact-checking website created in 2007 by the Florida-based Tampa Bay Times and acquired in 2018 by the Poynter Institute, a non-profit school for journalists. Here’s a report card on three presidents:

Keep ReadingShow less
A bold next step for the Democratic Party

DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

Getty Images//Stock Photo

A bold next step for the Democratic Party

In order to think about the next steps for the Democratic Party and the February 1, 2025, vote for a new Democratic National Committee Chair, it is useful to remember the context of three pairs of Democratic Presidents since the 1960s.

JFK and LBJ led the way for major progressive changes, ranging from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Affirmative Action and the War on Poverty. Johnson's Great Society was the most progressive agenda ever promoted by an American president.

Keep ReadingShow less
The 119th Congress: Some history makers, but fewer women overall

Vice President Kamala Harris presides over the electoral college vote count during a joint session of Congress in the House chamber on Monday, January 6, 2025.

(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

The 119th Congress: Some history makers, but fewer women overall

When the 119th U.S. Congress was sworn in, some newly elected women members made history.

Emily Randall, from Washington’s 6th Congressional District, is the first out LGBTQ+ Latina. Lisa Blunt Rochester and Angela Alsobrooks are the first Black senators to represent Delaware and Maryland, respectively — and the first two Black women to ever serve concurrently in the upper chamber. Sarah McBride, from Delaware’s at-large House district, is the first transgender member of Congress. All are Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
What can we learn in 2025 from the 100-year-old Scopes Trial?

Two groups of protesters, one blue and one red, marching with placards across an abstract American flag background.

Getty Images//Stock Photo

What can we learn in 2025 from the 100-year-old Scopes Trial?

Based on popular demand, the American Schism series will renew in 2025 with a look at science-based public policy caught in the crossfires of today’s culture wars.

Readers often send me comments on how this series effectively sheds light on our contemporary political divisions through careful examination and analysis of our own American history, since so many of our present issues are derivative of conflicts long brewing in our past. As I wrote last year on these pages, history can act as a salve for our present-day wounds if we apply it.

Keep ReadingShow less