The Philadelphia Inquirer uses powerful language to endorse Kamala Harris and her progressive agenda over Donald Trump and his stale, refried fascism

Kamala Harris addresses a rally in Philadelphia (NY Times)

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have been scorched -- by commentators in both the mainstream press and online media -- for preparing endorsements of Kamala Harris for president and then pulling them, apparently under pressure from the Donald Trump campaign and his No. 1 surrogate, Elon Musk. Since then, many papers, large and small, have shown the courage to go through with endorsements of Harris -- clearly the most fit and competent candidate in the 2024 field. Among large papers, that includes the Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times. The Philadelphia paper's editorial endorsing Harris is our favorite, and we share their sentiments word for word. Why did the Philadelphia Inquirer endorse Harris? They share their reasoning in clear and concise language, and we encourage our audience to read it. We hope you will follow up on Tuesday with a vote for Kamala Harris, the candidate who will protect our democracy and strengthen our government from a wannabe dictator, Trump, who former associates say is a fascist and admirer of Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and plans to serve only his personal interests. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer's Harris endorsement, which is one of those pieces that is so good I wish I had written myself: 

Kamala Harris for president | Endorsement; There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The road to the White House may well run through Pennsylvania and every vote matters.

by The Editorial Board
Published Oct. 25, 2024, 12:41 p.m. ET

Voters face an easy but tectonic choice in the race for the White House.

Will they choose the first woman or the oldest man to be the next president?

Will they choose the prosecutor or the convict?

Will they choose the candidate who supports restoring Roe v. Wade, or the man who bragged about overturning it?

Will they choose the candidate with a tax plan to help the middle class or the one who wants to help the super rich?

Will they choose the candidate who backs a tough bipartisan immigration law or the guy who killed the measure?

Will they choose the candidate who wants to combat climate change or the one who thinks it is a hoax?

Will they choose the candidate who upholds the peaceful transfer of power or the one who summoned a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol?

Will they choose the candidate who stands up to Vladimir Putin or the one who said Russia could do “whatever the hell they want”?

Will they choose the candidate who champions education, health care for all, and sensible gun safety laws, or the person who wants to close the U.S. Department of Education, repeal Obamacare, and told supporters after a school shooting to “get over it”?

Will they choose the candidate who supports the working class or the one who is anti-union and opposed raising the minimum wage?

Will they choose a woman of color who wants to unite the country, or a man with a history of misogynistic, racist, and divisive comments and actions?

Will they choose the candidate who supports LGBTQ rights or the one who wants to roll back protections for the gay community?

Will they choose the candidate who will uphold the presidential oath, or the one who was impeached twice for high crimes and misdemeanors, profited from the White House, dangled pardons to cronies, and was indicted four times?

This baker’s dozen list could go on, but the choice is clear and obvious. Vice President Kamala Harris wants to help all Americans.

Donald Trump wants to help himself.

That is why the Inquirer endorses Kamala Devi Harris to be the 47th president of the United States.

If elected, Harris, 60, would be the first Black, South Asian woman to hold the nation’s highest office. She rarely references her historic candidacy, and instead is laser-focused on earning votes through the substance of her vision, ideas, and temperament.

Harris, who grew up in a middle-class family and worked at McDonald’s one summer between college, broke other barriers as the first woman of color elected district attorney in San Francisco in 2004 and attorney general in California in 2010. Her record as a prosecutor doesn’t fit neatly in a box, as she was both tough on crime and progressive.

Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 and became the first female vice president in 2020. As President Joe Biden’s No. 2, she cast a record number of tie-breaking votes in a polarized Senate, including for the nearly $2 trillion American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act.

The American Rescue Plan contributed to inflation but also enabled the U.S. economy to bounce back faster and stronger from the pandemic than any other industrialized nation, while the Inflation Reduction Act added hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs and spurred infrastructure projects in every state.

By any fair measure, Biden deserves credit for leading the country back to normalcy following the economic collapse caused by the pandemic, Trump’s chaotic mismanagement, and complot to overturn the 2020 election.

Biden has been a calming and consequential president. His policies helped to create millions of jobs, record stock market gains, and higher wages. The Economist recently called the U.S. economy “the envy of the world.”

Yet, Biden, 81, reluctantly stepped aside following his poor debate performance. He deserves credit for putting the country ahead of his ambition — unlike Trump, 78, who has carried on in the face of growing questions about his advanced age and cognitive decline.

Biden’s departure in late July thrust Harris to the top of the ticket. With little notice or time, Harris has met the monumental moment.

She assembled a positive, focused, and forward-looking campaign that has inspired the Democratic Party faithful, and gained support from scores of influential Republicans, including several from Trump’s administration.

Her choice of running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, underscored her focus on building a humble and positive administration focused on helping middle-class and vulnerable Americans. It was yet another contrast to Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance, an unqualified and unpopular fraud who belittles women and once compared Trump to Hitler, but who is now willing to overturn an election for him.

If elected, Harris will likely maintain many of Biden’s positive policies, while charting her own path. In a wide range of interviews and speeches, Harris has demonstrated toughness and empathy — with a dash of cool aunt style.

She eviscerated Trump so thoroughly in their first debate that he backed out of a second meeting. During the debate, Harris did what no man has been able to do to Trump in his nearly 10 years on the political stage: She exposed his lies, frailties, and lack of vision for the country while laughing off his carnival-barking blather.

Harris’ dismantling of Trump served as a real-time reminder that he is unserious and unprepared for the world’s toughest job. Her ability to rattle Trump showed how foreign adversaries can easily steamroll and manipulate him.

Beyond unmasking the raging bully, Harris has substantive plans that will build on the Biden administration’s success. Her tax plan would lower taxes for 95% of Americans while those at the very top would pay more. Hence, the billionaire rebellion led by Elon Musk and others.

She wants to help small-business start-ups by increasing tax deductions from $5,000 to $50,000. She wants to restore the successful pandemic-era child tax credit that reduced childhood poverty by 30%.

Harris has a slew of proposals to make housing more affordable, including tax breaks for builders on homes aimed at first-time buyers, and offering $25,000 in down payment assistance for buyers who paid their rent on time for two years.

She supports U.S. Sen. Bob Casey’s (D., Pa.) bill to crack down on companies for price gouging, and wants to continue Biden’s efforts to lower prescription drug costs.

Harris also backs the bipartisan border deal Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to kill. If Democrats win control of Congress, she supports a federal law to restore the abortion rights that existed under Roe v. Wade.

Harris has many other commonsense proposals for education, gun safety, defense, climate change, and more spelled out on her website.

Meanwhile, Trump is mainly running to escape a mountain of legal troubles, stemming from his coup attempt, stolen classified documents, and conviction for paying off an adult film star to influence the 2016 election.

He is also out for retribution. More than 100 times, he has threatened to jail perceived enemies. He also has targeted media companies and journalists.

Trump has spent the campaign tearing down the country. He rails about the enemy within, but claims his armed mob of supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, took part in a “day of love.” He likens America to a failing, “third-world” nation.

Trump has nothing to offer but fear itself.

His campaign has careened from one reckless lie to another, claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating cats and dogs, and telling hurricane victims that disaster relief funds were spent on migrants.

Campaign stops have turned into Kabuki theater. In Pennsylvania, Trump aimlessly bobbed on stage to music for 39 minutes, served McDonald’s fries at a staged event, and told crude jokes about late golfer Arnold Palmer’s genitalia.

During a campaign rally in Michigan, Trump told women to “get your fat husband off the couch” and “tell him to go and vote for Trump.”

Sadly, many supporters laughed and cheered, though some have left his rallies out of boredom and exhaustion. Like Trump, this act is old.

There is no vision to lift or unite the country. Instead, Trump pits neighbor against neighbor. He has made it safe for white supremacists, antisemites, and neo-Nazis to come out from the shadows and attend his events waving swastikas and shouting, “Make America White again.”

Trump claims immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” echoing the rhetoric used by Adolf Hitler.

John F. Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff and a retired Marine general, said Trump met the definition of a “fascist” and would rule like a dictator.

Retired Gen. Mark Milley, who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, warned that the former president is “the most dangerous person to this country” and a “fascist to the core.”

Those warnings should not be ignored.

Beyond the anger, lies, and hate, Trump’s half-baked policy proposals would spell disaster for the economy, democracy, and his supporters, save a few billionaires.

Trump plans to impose tariffs on imported products from China and other countries. The tariffs amount to a national sales tax that would increase the prices of goods from clothes to computers to cars, and cost the typical family $2,600 a year.

Economists agree the tariffs would reignite inflation, lead to layoffs, reduce stock prices, and trigger a trade war.

Trump’s proposals to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits would drain the Social Security Trust Fund in six years and lead to a 23% reduction in benefits.

Trump also plans to use local police and the National Guard to round up and deport millions of immigrants. Besides the cruelty and legal hurdles, it would take years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Plus the economic impact. Mass deportations would shock the labor supply, boost the cost of fruits and vegetables, and increase inflation. America’s immigration system has been broken for decades, but this is not how to fix it.

Then there is Project 2025, a detailed plan to install Trump loyalists throughout the federal government and do away with civil liberties, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. The Education Department would be eliminated, and the National Weather Service dismantled. Trump has tried to distance himself from the plan, but his fingerprints are all over it.

Many supporters have learned to tolerate Trump’s crudeness, corruption, and incompetence. Some sadly revel in it. But many fail to understand that he doesn’t care about them. Trump made that clear at a recent rally: “I don’t care about you. I just want your vote.”

Trump will not leave the country better off. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of families who needlessly lost loved ones because he mismanaged, lied, and downplayed the pandemic. His plan to end the war in Ukraine mostly sounds like surrender, which would leave NATO teetering, and American moral authority diminished.

There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The road to the White House may well run through Pennsylvania. Attention must be paid. Every vote matters.

NY Times editorials chronicle dangers of a second Trump term, including trends that involve "rejecting rule of law," "grifter lawyers," and "neo-Nazis in GOP"

(YouTube)

In a series of editorials, New York Times opinion writers find that a second Trump presidency would put a strain on American democracy and help unleash a number of trends that are more than a little disturbing. 

Spencer Bokat-Lindell, staff editor of the section summarizes the findings in the paper's Opinion Today newsletter. Focusing on The Times' most recent editorial pieces about the 2024 election, with election day set for tomorrow, Bokat-Lindell writes:

On Tuesday, in her last major speech before Election Day, Vice President Kamala Harris closed the argument of her campaign against Donald Trump by casting him as a singular threat to American democracy, a “petty tyrant” “consumed with grievance and out for unchecked power.”

At Times Opinion, we’ve published a wide range of editorials, columns and guest essays that accord with that judgment. But they also complicate it, by placing Trump in the context of broader political forces that he has both harnessed and been harnessed by. After all, the man wouldn’t be much of a threat if he were acting alone.

When Trump was indicted by a Manhattan jury last March, for example, the columnist David French wrote about how Trump’s defenders used apocalyptic language to sow corrosive distrust of the justice system, “priming his supporters to reject the rule of law, root and branch.”

In a guest essay last year, the lawyers George Conway, J. Michael Luttig and Barbara Comstock argued that the conservative legal movement has also been complicit in Trump’s assault on the rule of law. While there were a few lawyers in the Trump administration who refused to participate in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election, “more alarming is the growing crowd of grifters, frauds and con men willing to subvert the Constitution and long-established constitutional principles for the whims of political expediency,” they wrote. “The actions of these conservative Republican lawyers are increasingly becoming the new normal.”

Another, especially alarming aspect of the new normal, as David Austin Walsh detailed in May, is the growing presence of neo-Nazi and other far-right elements within the Republican Party’s rank-and-file. That month, Trump’s Truth Social account posted a video of mock headlines about his re-election, one of which predicted that “what’s next for America” was the “creation of a unified reich.” The campaign claimed that the video was posted by a staff member, which underscores a problem “that goes far beyond Mr. Trump,” Walsh wrote. “A generation of young Republican staff members appears to be developing terminal white nationalist brain. And they will staff the next Republican administration.”

 These pieces and other coverage we’ve gathered clarify the stakes of tomorrow’s election.

Here at Legal Schnauzer, we will have more in the next two days on The Times' analysis of a possible second Trump term and the danger it poses for our democracy.

Why are these editorials particularly important? Let's briefly review the trends that Bokat-Lindell spotlights -- and we think you will see, without the need for further explanation, why we view the trends as "more than a little disturbing"

1. Sowing distrust of the justice system, priming his supporters to reject the rule of law -- (Note: I started this blog 17 years to spotlight my own distrust of the justice system, which is built on the personal experiences of my wife, Carol [Mrs. Schnauzer] and me in both state and federal courts in two states -- Alabama and Missouri. My research while working on posts for this blog indicates corruption in our nation's courts hardly is limited to those two states -- or to any region, for that matter, although the South and Midwest seem to have particularly ugly brands of courtroom sleaze. We will have much more coming soon on our personal experiences in court -- and many of them involve issues that could upend the lives of many readers. In my view, Trump and his supporters are right to distrust the justice system. But they are wrong to reject the rule of law. We have enough judges who already do that for us. Based on reporting of the facts and law in Trump's various legal entanglements, evidence of his guilt is overwhelming in quite a few of his cases. The problem, of course, is that he can't bring himself to take responsibility for his crimes, even though he recently admitted that he lost the 2020 election -- and he knew he lost it -- but he continues to blame Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and other Democrats for the charges he has faced, even though we have yet to see any evidence that any of those individuals or groups had a thing to do with bringing charges against Trump.)

2. Conservative lawyers have been complicit in Trump's assault on the rule of law, to the point that The Times refers to them as -- "grifters, frauds and con men willing to subvert the Constitution and long-established constitutional principles for the whims of political expediency."

3. The growing presence of neo-Nazi and other far-right elements within the Republican Party’s rank-and-file -- This issue alarmed The Times to the point that it included these words in its summary: "A generation of young Republican staff members appears to be developing terminal white nationalist brain. And they will staff the next Republican administration."

Sabrina Haake: Trump invited an enemy to attack NATO allies, and that is treason, driven by Trump's ignorance and his weird bromance with Putin

(Amazon)

 

In part two of our "Trump, Treason, and NATO" series we focus on the work of Sabrina Haake, a political/legal columnist for the Chicago Tribune and a trial attorney with a distinguished record in litigation.

She follows up on the analysis of Harvard University Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, whose work was featured in part one (add link to part one). Haake's take on issues related to Trump and NATO was republished at Daily Kos. Let's take a look: 

Forget Insurrection. Aiding the enemy is treason

By Sabrina Haake

Aleksei Navalny, hero to the free world, has joined the legion of Putin critics who met untimely poisonings, exploding planes and defenestrations from high-floor windows. His tragic death brings into relief a presidential candidate comforting a thug, and suggests Trump enablers have no concept of world history.

In April 1949, the world reeled from unspeakable horrors. An estimated 85 million people perished in WWII: 45 million soldiers smeared across battlefields, 25 million people starved to death and 11 million Jews, gays and other minorities died in Hitler’s maniacal death camps.

Allied forces emerged from the war determined to forge a collective defense for the future. The North Atlantic Treaty established NATO and gave teeth to a free world order governed by the rule of law.

Prized for its armed deterrence, NATO delivered somber recognition that although Hitler was gone, the power-lust, brutality and villainy that drives men like him would forever remain. For NATO signatories still limping from the war, the question wasn’t if Hitler-caliber evil would reappear on the global stage, but when.

Inviting an enemy to attack NATO allies is treason

NATO, sprung from a binding war and peacetime treaty, is more than an aspiration. Under revered and foundational text of the U.S. Constitution, treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate are the supreme law of the land.

For 75 years, America and her European allies have pledged under the treaty that an armed attack against any NATO member would trigger the same military obligations from all NATO members. Under NATO’s article 5, in the event of such an attack, each member state vows to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Last week, in insult to and derogation of this commitment, an ex-president who tried to stay in power by force publicly encouraged Russia, a present enemy, “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies, to punish them for failure to dedicate 2 percent of their GDP to defense spending.

Since he invaded Ukraine in 2022, Putin has threatened America and NATO with the use of nuclear weapons. Any such attack by Russia at Trump’s behest would trigger NATO’s collective military obligations and activate wartime responses with unfathomable consequences.

Putin is a war criminal and murderous KGB agent. As he brandishes his world-annihilating nuclear arsenal, he is wanted before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Trump’s suggestion that Putin attack NATO allies wasn’t just stupid. It put America and her allies in real danger, in aid and comfort to a current enemy. It was treason.

An alarmed world reacts to Trump’s ignorance

Trump’s new-level asininity hit the world stage just as the American intelligence community was learning about Russia's potential nuclear capacity to disable American defense space satellites. Trump’s demonstration of ignorance sent shockwaves around the world:

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General: Trump’s comments “undermine all of our security including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: “Any relativization of NATO’s guarantee of assistance is irresponsible and dangerous and is solely in Russia’s interests.”  

Charles Michel, president of the European Council: “Reckless statements on #NATO’s security and Art 5 solidarity serve only Putin’s interest.  They do not bring more security or peace to the world…

Any of these world leaders might have educated Trump, as well as America’s ignorant, that the only time the NATO mutual defense pact has ever been invoked was when European allies came to the aid of the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Our allies went to war for 20 years for us. Receiving NATO benefits for decades then refusing to reciprocate makes us look like an addled bully unfit to lead.  

Trump’s weird Putin bromance

Trump, who continues to argue before the United States Supreme Court that he is above the law, admires dictators. Like Putin, Trump has fought NATO’s anti-dictator objectives for years.

In 2020, according to Politico, Trump told the European Commission President that “if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you,” adding, “By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO.” Two years later, after Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump praised Putin as “a guy who is very savvy.” He said he considered Putin’s invasion of Ukraine “genius.”

Trump, who has secured the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, has long fawned over Putin. The admiration appears to be mutual. Despite clear evidence that Russia deployed social media bots to interfere in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf, Trump handed Putin “an unalloyed diplomatic triumph” by rejecting the conclusions of America’s own intelligence community, per The Washington Post.

Since then, Putin’s online troll army has not relented. As Thom Hartmann detailed:

Putin uses his internet troll army to convince the GOP base to demand their politicians abandon Ukraine and NATO … Just a few months ago, the U.S. intelligence community released a report to 100 countries letting them know that Russia is attacking democracies by trying to sow dissent and mistrust among their people, largely through social media and sympathetic influencers. The (report advised that) Russia is pursuing operations to degrade public confidence in the integrity of elections themselves. For Russia, the benefits of these operations are twofold: to sow instability within democratic societies, and to portray democratic elections as dysfunctional and the resulting governments as illegitimate.

In seeking to destroy democratic governments, Trump isn’t the only useful idiot at Putin’s disposal. Pro-Russia media propagandists such as Tucker Carlson are also in the game, and it’s working. After the Senate approved $60 billion in bipartisan aid to Ukraine last week,Trump’s Capitol Hill mouthpiece, Speaker Mike Johnson, promised it would not see a vote in the House, and then recessed the chamber for a two-week vacation.

Using defense spending is a ruse

After Trump tried to sic Putin on America’s allies, MAGA tried to justify the unjustifiable, by stressing that 19 of NATO’s 30 members are spending below the target of 2% of their annual GDP on defense.  But this talking point ignores Europe’s nearly $47 billion in financial and budgetary support, humanitarian aid, macro-financial economic aid and emergency assistance to Ukraine to keep its economy afloat as it fights bombs and an outsized army of conscripted Russian convicts.  

Several NATO members are already exceeding NATO’s 2% guideline. Poland spends over 3.9% of its annual GDP, more than the United States. Romania, Hungary, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania,  and Estonia each spend between 2.3 percent and 2.7 percent. All NATO nations had already begun moving toward spending 2 percent after Putin illegally annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Trump had nothing to do with it.

Trump would start WWIII to serve his own ego

Trump has invited Russia, a current enemy, to attack American allies while urging his congressional supporters to aid Russia by turning their backs on Ukraine.

Trump’s ignorance has put American interests at risk. Simply suggesting that the United States will disavow its military obligations instantly weakens our alliances.

Given Trump’s instability, and the national divide he has worked so hard to cultivate, our longtime European partners may in fact be safer by distancing themselves from the United States, emboldening not only Putin’s Russia, but China, Iran, North Korea and terrorist proxies in the Middle East. The damage is done. Whether it can be contained remains to be seen.

My grandfather, Gus Wirthwein, fought in WWII. One of the lucky ones, he got to come home with both legs to his farm in Huntingburg, Indiana. At day’s end he liked to drink beer (Pabst) in front of a campfire and carve walnuts. He’d talk about the crops, the neighbor’s foal, the weather — near anything, except he would never talk about what happened to him during the war.

I only pray that wherever he is, he doesn’t know what Trump has done, and will do to NATO and the free world if given another chance.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing on 1st and 14th amendment defense.  Her  Substack  is free.

Laurence Tribe: Trump's statement to let Putin do "whatever the hell he wants" to NATO allies raises specter of treason via "aid and comfort" to an enemy

(Amazon)

As we reported yesterday, Donald Trump remains vulnerable to treason charges because of his actions and inactions during the Jan. 6, 2001, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. That report was based on an analysis by Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at Harvard University School of Law. A finding of treason against Trump could mean he is disqualified from ever holding federal office again, and Gersen spells out several ways that could happen. In short, people who are determined to support Trump in tomorrow's election could be throwing their votes away on a candidate who will not be allowed to serve, whose name legally should not be on the ballot.

Since Gersen published her article in 2021, several other legal experts have examined the issue of Trump and treason -- and reached similarly grim conclusions regarding the former president and Republican candidate in tomorrow's 2024 election. In these instances, experts are not focusing on Jan. 6, but rather Trump's statements regarding NATO and U.S. allies. Over the next two days we will be publishing scholarly articles about the latest on Trump and treason.  We start our series, "Trump, Treason, and NATO," now with a piece based on the work of Laurence Tribe, a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University.

A summary of Tribe's work is carried at Raw Story under the headline:

‘Treason’: Top constitutional expert warns of Trump’s attack on NATO

By David Badash 

Donald Trump's remarks that he would not only violate the United States' treaty with NATO by refusing to defend member countries if they were attacked by Russia and had not spent enough on defense, but that he would encourage President Vladimir Putin "to do whatever the hell" he wants in that situation, have sparked fears and warnings in the U.S. and in NATO countries. But one top constitutional scholar is issuing a different kind of warning: treason.

Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina, home to his top Republican rival and his own former UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, Trump on Saturday relayed this anecdote to supporters: "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?' I said, 'You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?' He said, 'Yes, let’s say that happened.' 'No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"

Donald Trump's remarks that he would not only violate the United States' treaty with NATO by refusing to defend member countries if they were attacked by Russia and had not spent enough on defense, but that he would encourage President Vladimir Putin "to do whatever the hell" he wants in that situation, have sparked fears and warnings in the U.S. and in NATO countries. But one top constitutional scholar is issuing a different kind of warning: treason.

Laurence Tribe, the well-known constitutional scholar, is University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, co-founder of the American Constitution Society, and author of American Constitutional Law.

Tribe wrote: "This is an announcement by Mr. Trump of intent to commit what Article III defines as 'treason' by giving 'aid and comfort' to an 'enemy,' which Russia would become under Article V of the NATO Treaty by attacking one of our NATO allies."

He was responding to a scathing piece on Trump's remarks in The Atlantic by Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor. and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, and specifically, via X, on this passage: "The leader of one of America’s two major political parties has just signaled to the Kremlin that if elected, he would not only refuse to defend Europe, but he would gladly support Vladimir Putin."

In The Atlantic, Nichols added, "Here in the United States, we have become accustomed to treating Trump like an angry child, ignoring his outbursts the way parents ignore a toddler who shouts threats and claims to hate mommy and daddy during tantrums."

"But other nations do not see an overaged juvenile; they see a man who once held the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and could once again become the commander in chief of the American military. They are watching him because they believe—as they should—that he is telling them exactly what he’ll do if he returns to office."

Trump's remarks drew the ire of NATO itself.

“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,' NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement," The Associated Press reported.

Watch Trump's remarks below or at this link.

Trump: One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, Well, sir, if we don't pay and were attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said.. No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. pic.twitter.com/2RPVDFZIXy
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 10, 2024

With an election two days away, questions of treason continue to hang over Donald Trump and could wipe out his ability to hold federal office in the future

Rioters clash with law enforcement on Jan. 6 (Getty)

 

Americans from the left side of the political spectrum have tossed the word "treason" in Donald Trump's direction for several years, with no one in authority willing to prosecute Trump and seek to hold him accountable. That might be because treason is a more complex concept than many of us realize; it's a word that is easy to use but difficult to understand. A legal scholar from Harvard University, however, has written that Trump and his supporters came about as close as you can get to committing actual acts of treason on Jan. 6, 2001. Jeannie Suk Gersen, writing at The New Yorker, makes a compelling case that Jan. 6 involved more than attacks on the U.S. Capitol and acts of violence that proved fatal in some cases.

Gersen is not the only legal expert who has written about Trump and acts of possible treason, and the acts go beyond the insurrection of Jan. 6. Will someone attempt to hold him accountable, with the U.S. election just two days away? Accountability certainly will not come between now and election day, but in that time, we will publish several posts about Trump's ties to actions that might constitute the most serious criminal act one can commit against the United States. And yet, Trump hopes to be elected president, for the second time, of a country he tried to overthrow -- and quite a few Americans tell pollsters they intend to support him. Does that support make sense, especially when you consider that a finding of treason would disqualify him from serving as president, -- and he already is lawfully disqualified as an insurrectionist under the Constitution and will only be on the ballot because the U.S. Supreme Court butchered a case against him in Colorado. (We will be posting about that case in the next couple of days, too.) As to our question -- does support for Trump make sense? -- I will leave that for readers to consider, but I will add that it should give every American pause.

Let's return to Jeannie Suk Gersen, who became the first Asian-American woman to receive tenure at Harvard School of Law in 2010. Under the headline "Did Trump and His Supporters Commit Treason? Few events in American history have matched the Framers’ definition as clearly as the insurrection of January 6th," she writes:

For years, Carlton F. W. Larson, a treason scholar and law professor at the University of California, Davis, has swatted away loose treason accusations by both Donald Trump and his critics. Though the term is popularly used to describe all kinds of political betrayals, the Constitution defines treason as one of two distinct, specific acts: “levying War” against the United States or “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Colluding with Russia, a foreign adversary but not an enemy, is not treason, nor is bribing Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Ordering the military to abandon Kurdish allies in Syria, effectively strengthening ISIS, is not treason, either—though that is getting warmer. During Trump’s Presidency, Larson told me, his colleagues teased him by asking, “Is it treason yet?” He always said no. But the insurrection of January 6th changed his answer, at least with regard to Trump’s followers who attacked the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress’s certification of the election. “It’s very clear that would have been seen as ‘levying war,’ ” he said.

Both of Trump’s impeachments, in 2019 and 2021, were for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but the Constitution also names treason as an offense for which a President can be impeached. Individuals, including a former President, may also be criminally punished for treason, perhaps the highest offense in our legal system, carrying the possibility of the death penalty. Fearing abuse of treason charges, the Framers gave treason a narrow definition and made it extremely difficult to prove.

What makes treason such a tricky topic? Gersen spells it out:

The Treason Clause dictates that a conviction can rest only “on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Partly as a result, there have been around forty treason prosecutions. No American has been executed for treason against the U.S., although Hipolito Salazar (a Mexican who officials thought was American) was federally executed for treason during the Mexican-American War, and some states have executed people for treason, including the abolitionist John Brown.

Larson wrote in his book On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law, from 2020, that the Framers “had a very specific image in mind—men gathering with guns, forming an army, and marching on the seat of government.” Few events in American history, if any, have matched that description as clearly as the insurrection of January 6th, which, court documents suggest, was planned by militia members who may have intended to capture elected officials. The American most associated with treason was one who did not “levy war” but rather gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy: Benedict Arnold. He at first fought heroically in the Revolutionary War but then attempted to aid the British; he fled to the enemy when his betrayal was discovered, and so was never punished. Treason prosecutions for levying war were brought against some individuals who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, in which armed men burned down a tax collector’s house, and the Fries Rebellion of 1799, in which armed men stormed a prison and forced the release of tax resisters. Both resulted in conviction followed by pardon. The Jefferson Administration prosecuted the former Vice-President Aaron Burr, in 1807, for allegedly conspiring with a group of armed men to overthrow the U.S. government in New Orleans, but he was acquitted. In connection with that planned rebellion, the Supreme Court held that a mere conspiracy to levy war does not count as actually levying war. Another treason case resulted from the Christiana Riot, in which dozens of men fought the return of slaves to their owners as required by the Fugitive Slave Act. Supreme Court Justice Robert Grier, presiding at trial (as Justices did in those days), held that “levying war” had to involve an intent to overthrow the government or hinder the execution of law.

The story of treason in the United States has its roots in the South, Gersen writes:

Southern secessionists who waged war against the United States were treasonous under any reading of the Treason Clause’s “levying war” standard. Jefferson Davis, the former U.S. senator turned President of the Confederacy, was indicted for treason in 1866. Before trial, however, Chief Justice Salmon Chase made clear his view that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been ratified a few months earlier, precluded any other treason penalties for Confederates. Section 3 of the amendment bars from holding public office anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection against” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States. Because of the Chief Justice’s interpretation, President Andrew Johnson gave up on the prosecution of Davis and granted amnesty to all former Confederates if they swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Union.

In the past century, federal treason prosecutions generally have been “aid and comfort” cases. After the Second World War, a Japanese-American woman named Iva Toguri D’Aquino, better known as Tokyo Rose, was convicted of treason for broadcasting anti-American propaganda on Radio Tokyo; she was pardoned in 1977, after witnesses recanted. The poet Ezra Pound was famously prosecuted for Fascist propaganda broadcasts on Italian radio; the case was dropped in 1958, when he was found incompetent to stand trial. During the Cold War, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, not treason; the Soviet Union was not technically an enemy. After a half century of no federal treason cases, the indictment of the Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, in 2006, was the first to concern giving aid and comfort to an enemy that was not a nation. Had Gadahn ever been tried, the defense might have argued that a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda isn’t an enemy as envisioned in the Treason Clause, though a federal district court assumed, in 2013, that it was. Gadahn was killed in Pakistan in 2015, by a C.I.A. drone strike.

Why have the horrific acts of Jan. 6 not attracted much attention from authorities on the grounds of treason? It's not because of a change in the law, Gersen writes, but a change in perception about the law:

Since the Capitol insurrection, there has been little talk of treason charges. Carlton Larson suggested that this was because “everybody now tends to think of treason as mostly aiding foreign enemies.” In his book On Treason, he even states that “levying war is arguably archaic, of interest only to historians,” and that, in the twenty-first century, “armed rebellions to overthrow the government are simply not going to happen.” But, to the Framers, such an insurrection was a paradigmatic case of treason. The founding-era Chief Justice John Marshall held in the treason trial of Aaron Burr that levying war entails “the employment of actual force” by “a warlike assemblage, carrying the appearance of force, and in a situation to practice hostility.” If some of those who attacked the Capitol assembled in order to incapacitate Congress—perhaps even by kidnapping or killing lawmakers—then their actions could be construed as an attempt to overthrow the government, and federal prosecutors could plausibly consider treason charges. As Larson put it, “At some point, you have to say, if that’s not levying war against the United States, then what on earth is?”

Shortly after Jan. 6, Mitch McConnell, who is now the Senate Minority Leader, said that the attackers “tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like,” offering a narrower purpose than government overthrow. Investigators examining the emerging evidence on the scope of the plot might disagree. Federal law also makes it a separate felony for anyone who owes allegiance to the U.S. and knows of the commission of any treason to conceal it or not tell authorities. That vastly widens the net of those who could potentially be charged, including friends, acquaintances, and co-workers of the attackers. (Since the attack, many such individuals have, in fact, come forward to give information to law enforcement.)

Could Trump still be disqualified from holding federal office? The answer is yes, and it might not have to involve a criminal finding of treason. Gersen writes:

The Treason Clause’s strict evidentiary rule of two witnesses to the act makes it exceedingly difficult to convict anyone of treason, even with so much conduct captured on video. But a treason case against Trump himself might conceivably be built, if prosecutors could establish that he knew in advance that his supporters planned to violently assault the Capitol, rather than peacefully protest; that he intended his speech urging them to “fight harder” to spur them to attack Congress imminently; and that he purposely didn’t do anything to stop the insurrection while it was unfolding—or, worse, intentionally contributed to a security failure that led to the breach. Then Trump would have engaged in treason along with supporters who attempted, in his name, to overthrow the U.S. government. At a minimum, it appears that Trump, along with top government officials, was aware that his followers were planning acts of violence. Trump did, however, say, in the midst of his incendiary speech, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Short of treason, a related federal law prohibiting rebellion or insurrection states that a person who incites “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto,” has committed a serious felony and is disqualified from holding federal office. This description is similar to the current article of impeachment against Trump: “for inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” If two-thirds of senators vote to convict Trump, a majority of the Senate could then vote to bar him from future federal office. But a Senate conviction requires the votes of at least seventeen Republicans and, so far, that looks unlikely. A federal criminal conviction for inciting rebellion or insurrection may offer an alternative route to disqualifying Trump from holding office.

As of January 2024, the government had indicted 1,200 people for crimes related to the insurrection, with 890 people found guilty of federal crimes. The charges include unlawful entry, disorderly conduct, theft, destruction of property, firearms offenses, assault on police, conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of justice, and even curfew violations. Ongoing investigations will likely produce more indictments. In addition to potential homicide and terrorism charges, prosecutors have pledged to pursue the charge of “seditious conspiracy.” That crime overlaps with but covers more than treason; federal law defines it as any conspiracy “to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States.”

While federal prosecutors could charge some of the leaders of the riot with treason, seditious conspiracy would be far easier to prove. It is clear that the rioters’ goal was, at a minimum, to delay Congress’s legally mandated counting of electoral votes. Prosecutors would need to prove that two or more people had agreed to undertake the seditious conduct, but, with respect to the rioters who were explicit about their aims and coördinated their actions, the evidence may well be sufficient, particularly given the violent result. More evidence might even enable charges against individuals who conspired to attack the Capitol but didn’t take part in the events. Some of those individuals might be elected officials. Representative Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat of New Jersey, has alleged that unnamed members of Congress “had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on January 5th, a reconnaissance for the next day.” Soon afterward, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Capitol Police opened investigations into what roles members might have played in the siege.

If evidence were to emerge that members of Congress intentionally aided or incited the attack, they may face criminal consequences. It’s more likely, however, that Republicans who amplified Trump’s election-fraud lies will be sanctioned by their colleagues. Seven Democratic senators have filed an ethics complaint against the Republican Senators Ted Cruz, of Texas, and Josh Hawley, of Missouri, who led the effort to overturn the election in Congress. Representative Cori Bush, a Democrat of Missouri, has introduced a House resolution to investigate and potentially expel members of Congress who challenged states’ electoral votes. Bush said, in a tweet, that they “incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election.” Mitch McConnell may agree. He has pointedly acknowledged that the mob was “provoked by the President and other powerful people,” implying that fellow-lawmakers might bear responsibility. But, whatever moral condemnation or political remedy is appropriate, criminal charges cannot be brought against congresspeople such as Hawley and Cruz solely for using a legal process to challenge electoral votes in Congress. It is unlikely that any Republican politician thought they’d succeed in overturning the election, and it may be hard to distinguish their moves in Congress, at least legally, from a few Democrats’ challenges to states’ electoral votes in 2001, 2005, and 2017.

How could Trump still feel the sting of repercussions from Jan. 6. Gersen says it could happen in several ways:

Even if Congress doesn’t censure or expel any of its members, the Senate declines to convict Trump, and federal prosecutors decline to bring charges against any of them, Trump and lawmakers who tried to overturn the election could still be held accountable through Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the same provision that was intended to prevent former Confederates from holding office. If Trump and the officials tried to run for office again, a lawsuit could claim that they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, if the evidence bears it out, some could be disqualified from holding office. But, apart from any of these remotely possible legal remedies, Republicans who helped foment the attack are facing political repercussions: in the weeks since the riot, Hawley has had a fund-raiser and a book contract cancelled, and Missouri’s two biggest newspapers have called for his resignation. But, alas, in our divided country, Republican officials who denounced the insurrection or voted to impeach Trump may also face the ire of many Republican voters.

The past month has required both affirmation of the strength of our democracy and recognition of its fragility. Laws against treason, sedition, rebellion, and insurrection may seem obscure or arcane, but they are on the books for those real instances in which the expression of strong beliefs, which is constitutionally protected, crosses into actions that fundamentally betray and threaten our government. In times of intense division, such actions pose more danger even as their meaning becomes more contestable. The deep split that cracked open during one of the most consequential transfers of power in history—which, as it turned out, was militarized and not exactly “peaceful”—is apparent in the fact that one side’s patriot is the other side’s traitor. Punishments for disloyal acts are a means of insisting on who has legitimate power in our constitutional democracy, and of deterring those who are shown to be trying to destroy it. The legal terms may seem archaic, and sometimes have been misused or abused, but that should not blunt their precise relevance to our unfortunate contemporary situation.