The dam is beginning to break.

July 27, 2022

          Well, that was fast. In the words of Liz Cheney, the “dam is beginning to break.” One day after two former Trump administration officials testified before a grand jury, the NYTimes and Washington Post are bristling with details about questions asked by prosecutors presenting evidence to a federal grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C. The questions put to the witnesses focused on Trump. Per the Washington Post,

          The prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021; his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election; and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, the people said. Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, these people said.

          Per the NYTimes,

          The questions about Mr. Trump focused on, among other topics, the plan he was pushing to derail congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021, the person familiar with the testimony said.

          The information was likely leaked by someone outside the DOJ with knowledge of the questions presented to Marc Short and Greg Jacobs. A reasonable guess is that attorneys for those witnesses provided the information to the media a day after Short and Jacobs were caught on camera leaving the D.C. federal courthouse where the grand jury is sitting.

          The most important takeaways from the disclosures to the Times and WaPo are that the DOJ is investigating (a) Trump’s effort to interfere with the electoral count on January 6th and (b) Trump’s knowledge or involvement in the “fake electors” plot. Those are two of the most important elements of Trump’s attempted coup. It is reassuring to learn that the DOJ is finally looking at those aspects of Trump’s unlawful effort to overturn the 2020 election.

          Add to the above that subpoenas were served last month on John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, and it appears that the DOJ is looking at nearly every aspect of Trump’s attempted coup. (The only area where there is little evidence of a DOJ investigation is Trump’s effort to overturn the vote in Georgia.)

          WaPo supplemented its story with a screenshot of a federal grand jury subpoena to one of the fake electors from Arizona. The subpoena includes a case number that indicates the investigation was opened in 2022 (“USAO 2022R150”). The subpoena to the Arizona fake elector was issued on June 21, 2022.

          Separately, the NYTimes reported on emails from those involved in the fake elector’s plot showing that the participants believed the electors were—in a word—“fake.” One of those referring to the electors as “fake” was an attorney writing to a Trump campaign advisor. Per the NYTimes, the attorney wrote to the campaign advisor,

          “We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted.”

          It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Those organizing the fake electors knew they were attempting to defraud the United States of America.

          On the day that grand jury witnesses began leaking to the press, Merrick Garland again assured the American people that the DOJ was looking at “everyone responsible” for the effort to overturn the election. Garland repeated that statement when asked if his statement extended to a former president or presidential candidate. By repeating his mantra in response to the question about a former president, Garland clearly implied that the answer to the question was, “Yes, it includes a former president or presidential candidate.” See NBC News, AG Garland says Trump’s potential 2024 candidacy will not impact Jan. 6 investigation.

          Jennifer Rubin echoed the relief of many when she wrote that the DOJ is “finally” picking up the pace of its Jan. 6 investigation and that “the pressure on Merrick Garland was appropriate. It might have worked.” Prior to this flurry of activity, Garland’s defenders argued that the absence of leaks was proof that Garland was working diligently in the background. We no longer have to indulge the “absence of evidence is evidence” defense of Merrick Garland. A grand jury is looking at Trump’s culpability for his attempted coup. That is good news that we should accept at face value—without regard to timing.

Speaking of Trump’s plan to announce his candidacy for 2024 . . . .

          Trump returned to Washington on Tuesday to speak before a conservative policy institute. He all but announced that he was running for president in 2024. He said,

I always say I ran the first time and I won, then I ran a second time and I did much better. We may just have to do it again. We have to straighten out our country. I look forward to laying out many more details in the weeks and months to come.

          The twice-impeached, coup-plotting, malignant narcissist was hailed as a conquering hero by Republican rank-and-file in D.C.—especially when he mocked transgender people. Nothing has changed in the Republican Party. They are a party of bullies fueled by grievance and fear. That is why it is up to us to save democracy without them.

Update on Republican support for national law protecting same-sex marriage.

          Senate Republicans are beginning to dodge and weave on whether they will support legislation granting federal recognition for same-sex marriage. See Talking Point Memo, GOPers Really Don’t Want To Go On The Record On Same-Sex Marriage. Although the bill passed in the House with 50 Republican votes, most Senate Republicans are refusing to declare their positions while others are claiming the legislation is a “stunt vote” by Democrats. Marco Rubio said,

          I don’t know why we’re doing that bill, there’s no threat to [same-sex marriage] status in America. But I know plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices.

          To which I say, “Really Senator Rubio? Have you talked to any of your constituents in a same-sex marriage to ask whether they value the validity of their marriage more (or less) than current gas prices?” The fact that Rubio would say something so utterly stupid causes me to worry that he will give cover to other Republicans who won’t tie same-sex marriage to gas prices.

          If Senate Republicans refuse to support federal recognition for same-sex marriage, that is another reason Democrats must expand their margin of control in the Senate in 2022. It is still too early to make predictions, but we have reason for hope—and no reason for complacency. Vote!

Concluding Thoughts.  

          I received this email from a reader today:

Hi Robert, 

I’d thought I’d share this Max Boot op ed.  Opinion: I used to be optimistic about America’s future. Not anymore.. It’s extremely worrying and concerning, but articles like this keep on popping up. At some point it feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

          I disagree with Boot’s views mightily. But before I criticize Boot, I must first defend myself against the inevitable emails from his friends who tell me that if I don’t agree with Max Boot, “You don’t get it.” Somehow in their view, not agreeing to Boot’s dark vision of the future means you don’t understand the gravity of the threat we face as a nation.

          I get it. I get that Trump mounted one coup and is plotting another. I get that we came within hours (minutes?) of Trump preventing the transition of power as provided by the Constitution. I get that the Republican Party sees the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome. I get that they see government as scaffolding to be set aflame. I get that they view Americans who are not white, straight, Christian evangelicals as “less than” or “other than” “real Americans.” I get it.

          What I don’t get is declaring defeat before we have engaged in the first battle of the next presidential election. What I don’t get is a pre-eminent historian and writer who believes that declaring democracy is already (or nearly) dead is the best way to rally Americans to its defense. I get that for some people, obsessive contemplation of catastrophe is their way to mediate personal anxiety about the future. That was the case for the relentlessly despairing TS Eliot, who wrote that “the way up is the way down.”

          So, too, with Boot, who writes,

          “We need to take seriously the possibility that the United States could become a failed democracy, if only to avert that dire fate. . . I used to be an optimist about America’s future. Not anymore. There’s a good reason that so many people I know are acquiring foreign passports and talking about moving somewhere else: The prognosis is grim.

          In short, Max Boot believes he is saving America by predicting its demise. I disagree.

          Here’s the problem with Boot’s approach: On January 20, 2025, it is within the realm of possibility that Donald Trump is president and Republicans control both chambers of Congress. I don’t think that will happen, and we must do everything in our power to stop that possibility from becoming reality. But what if it does? Where will Max Boot be on that day? Writing an obituary for the “failed American democracy”?

          If that day comes to pass, I will tell you where I will be: I will be standing with tens of millions of Americans resolved to resurrecting democracy and the rule of law in the shortest time possible. I will be standing with the majority of Americans who will refuse to allow a permanent minority to end more than two centuries of the great American experiment. I will be standing with the majority of Americans ensuring that our generation will not be the first to falter in passing forward the gift and promise of the Constitution.

          If that day comes to pass, I will not be “acquiring a foreign passport and talking about moving somewhere else.” I will not abandon our nation in her hour of need. I will not be prophesying doom to assuage my fears at the cost of dissuading others who still want to fight for democracy.

          The reader who sent the note is 100% correct: Doomsaying can become a self-fulling prophecy. Every dire fact included in Max Boot’s litany of challenges is absolutely true—as you would expect from a respected and careful scholar like Boot. But he looks at those facts and despairs for the future of America. I look at those facts and see the scope and scale of our duty as Americans to preserve democracy—nothing more, and nothing less.

          For earlier generations those threats were the Civil War, the resurgent KKK, Nazism, a Cold War that came within hours of destroying the planet, a decade of political assassinations, a nation torn apart by the war in Vietnam, and a lawless president who converted the FBI into his Praetorian Guard and the Oval Office into a den of corruption and revenge.

Mr. Boot’s essay could have been written before any of those generational challenges and he would have likewise predicted a failed democracy. He would have been wrong then, as he is now—because others did not share his pessimism. Instead, they persisted despite the overwhelming odds. We should be glad they did—because they delivered us to this moment in history.

          To be clear, I did not write above, “It will be easy,” or “Don’t worry, everything will work out okay in the end,” or “Be happy, don’t sweat the small stuff.” What I did write is that I believe the American people are tougher and more resilient than Max Boot apparently believes. That is why I remain optimistic about America’s future. You should be, too.

          Talk to you tomorrow!