Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump has so many criminal counts pending against him (88), as well as three major civil judgments (two E. Jean Carroll cases and one for fraudulent property evaluations in New York), that his threats, lies, attacks and assorted outrages often get framed in purely legalistic terms. Well, his attack on New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s daughter did not actually violate the original gag order because it didn’t mention family members. Oh, his reposting of a doctored photo showing President Biden bound and gagged in the back of a pickup truck does not technically violate 18 U.S. Code Section 871 because he was not inciting action.
Such an approach is deeply misguided. Not every situation calls for us to play “name that crime.” Framing the discussion that way drains Trump’s reprehensible conduct of its moral dimension and minimizes his threat to democracy. He then winds up getting a pass if his behavior cannot be characterized as a violation of a specific statute or court order.
When voters are considering his fitness for office, Trump’s conduct, whether legal or not, should be assessed in the context of democratic norms and moral principles that would apply to any office seeker, especially one running for president. Someone who targets a judge’s daughter on social media or reposts violent imagery of a sitting president is simply unfit for the Oval Office. (As historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat urged, “Wake up people. This is an emergency. This is what authoritarian thugs and terrorists do. Trump is targeting the President of the United States.”)
The burden should not be solely on judges, both those on Trump cases and those observing, to raise the red flag, as Merchan did in expanding the gag order. (“The threats to the integrity of the judicial proceeding are no longer limited to the swaying of minds but on the willingness of individuals, both private and public, to perform their lawful duty before this Court,” he wrote.) The obligation falls on the public, political leaders and media to defend the rule of law and democracy itself, whether or not a specific order has been violated. In short, Trump’s assault on our democracy must be viewed not “merely” as legal infractions; the response must come not only from judges.
Reducing all of Trump’s reprehensible offenses to legalities also gives Republicans an excuse to avoid condemning his behavior. (Well, it’s up to the judge to decide if he violated a court order.) When Trump assaults democratic norms, Republicans rarely come forward to condemn him. Too many interviewers do not press them to take responsibility for the conduct of their nominee. (How can you support someone who targets a judge’s daughter? In what universe is it permissible to show a photo of the president bound and gagged?)
Too often, only former Republican officeholders condemn Trump. “This is one of those things where we can’t move past the headline: Donald Trump shared an image of the president of the United States tied in the back of a pickup truck, bound and gagged,” retired Republican congressman Joe Walsh said on CNN. “I mean, stop there. ... This is way beyond politics. This is an incitement to violence.” Now, that’s the framework for discussing Trump’s serial outrages.
Democrats up and down the ticket would be well advised to press their opponents: Is there any line Trump could cross that you wouldn’t defend? How can voters expect you to uphold your oath in the face of his threats and complaints? Meanwhile, the media, elected leaders and voters should not ignore that Trump’s conduct need not be illegal to be disqualifying.
Such an approach is deeply misguided. Not every situation calls for us to play “name that crime.” Framing the discussion that way drains Trump’s reprehensible conduct of its moral dimension and minimizes his threat to democracy. He then winds up getting a pass if his behavior cannot be characterized as a violation of a specific statute or court order.
When voters are considering his fitness for office, Trump’s conduct, whether legal or not, should be assessed in the context of democratic norms and moral principles that would apply to any office seeker, especially one running for president. Someone who targets a judge’s daughter on social media or reposts violent imagery of a sitting president is simply unfit for the Oval Office. (As historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat urged, “Wake up people. This is an emergency. This is what authoritarian thugs and terrorists do. Trump is targeting the President of the United States.”)
The burden should not be solely on judges, both those on Trump cases and those observing, to raise the red flag, as Merchan did in expanding the gag order. (“The threats to the integrity of the judicial proceeding are no longer limited to the swaying of minds but on the willingness of individuals, both private and public, to perform their lawful duty before this Court,” he wrote.) The obligation falls on the public, political leaders and media to defend the rule of law and democracy itself, whether or not a specific order has been violated. In short, Trump’s assault on our democracy must be viewed not “merely” as legal infractions; the response must come not only from judges.
Reducing all of Trump’s reprehensible offenses to legalities also gives Republicans an excuse to avoid condemning his behavior. (Well, it’s up to the judge to decide if he violated a court order.) When Trump assaults democratic norms, Republicans rarely come forward to condemn him. Too many interviewers do not press them to take responsibility for the conduct of their nominee. (How can you support someone who targets a judge’s daughter? In what universe is it permissible to show a photo of the president bound and gagged?)
Too often, only former Republican officeholders condemn Trump. “This is one of those things where we can’t move past the headline: Donald Trump shared an image of the president of the United States tied in the back of a pickup truck, bound and gagged,” retired Republican congressman Joe Walsh said on CNN. “I mean, stop there. ... This is way beyond politics. This is an incitement to violence.” Now, that’s the framework for discussing Trump’s serial outrages.
Democrats up and down the ticket would be well advised to press their opponents: Is there any line Trump could cross that you wouldn’t defend? How can voters expect you to uphold your oath in the face of his threats and complaints? Meanwhile, the media, elected leaders and voters should not ignore that Trump’s conduct need not be illegal to be disqualifying.
