Evidence will not be the initiating impulse
The New Republic reminds us that what Trump is doing is not legitimate response to rivals but something else entirely.
The idea that Trump should pursue “revenge” and “retribution” for prosecutions is everywhere on the right. After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon to surrender to prison, numerous MAGA influencers, including the MAGA God King himself, angrily vowed such payback. Republicans have said Trump should “fight fire with fire” (Senator Marco Rubio) and that GOP district attorneys should declare open season on Democrats (Stephen Miller). Trump, of course, has offered many versions of this, including to Dr. Phil and Hannity.
In the media, this story tends to be framed as follows: Will Trump seek “revenge” for his legal travails, or won’t he? But that framing unwittingly lets Trump set the terms of this debate. It implies that he is vowing to do to Democrats what was done to him.
Criminals don’t get to “seek revenge” for being convicted of crimes. That’s not how any of this works.
But that’s not what Trump is actually threatening. Whereas Trump is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that law enforcement gathered before asking grand juries to indict him, he is expressly declaring that he will prosecute President Biden and Democrats solely because this is what he endured, meaning explicitly that evidence will not be the initiating impulse.
Nor will it be the ongoing impulse or the terminating impulse. It won’t have anything to do with it.
You might think this distinction is obvious—one most voters will grasp instinctually. But why would they grasp this? It’s not uncommon to encounter news stories about Trump’s threats—see here, here, or here—that don’t explain those basic contours of the situation. Such stories often don’t take the elementary step of explaining the fundamental difference between bringing prosecutions in keeping with what evidence and the rule of law dictate and bringing them as purported “retaliation.” Why would casual readers simply infer that prosecutions against Trump are legally predicated while those he is threatening are not?
Conclusion: don’t let Trump frame the subject this way. Correct it every damn time.
It’s obvious that power-seekers would describe the rule of law as a form of corruption, just as capitalists describe safeguarding as an infringement on freedom. Trump wants to “govern” (if you could call it that) any way he chooses, and does not care about any protections for individual citizens. Unfortunately, the American constitution seems to establish an elected king with extraordinary powers, and if he is supported by a majority in the Senate nobody will be able to stop him doing anything he likes. And as Trump is a fundamentally stupid and greedy man you will all be fucked if he is elected. And so will any hope for democracy in the rest of the world. Well, I can’t talk. Look at what we have in the UK: Keir Starmer or the Tories, fundamental liars the lot of them, in a country that has been trashed for personal profit for decades and whose rule of law is being disassembled bit by bit. Are we going to Hell? Will Russia take over Europe? Three superpowers: Russia, China and the USA to rule the world, with North Korea “helping”. 1984 might have been too optimistic. What about 2028, 2029?
I suggest a slight addition to “don’t let Trump frame the subject this way. Correct it every damn time.” It is “And while you’re at it, stock up, hunker down, and get ready for Civil War #2.”
The US Constitution has not been bad to date, but it is facing a major threat right now, and could finish up fighting for its life, being trumped by Trump. (aka Drumpf, which readily becomes Dumpf.)
Come to think of it, ‘Dump Trump’ would not be a bad slogan for an election campaign.