In the Press

Don’t let tawdry elements of the first-ever criminal trial of a U.S. president distract from the most chilling, autocratic aspect of these legal proceedings: How Trump deliberately puts people who uphold the rule of law in danger.

Instead of focusing on presenting a sober, respectful defense, Trump is using this trial, as well the others he faces, as an opportunity to attack the judiciary, using his tremendous profile to weaken it as an institution of accountability.

There’s a weird tic that happens in most news stories on Trump’s trials. Usually it’s a single sentence — or really, a single clause — on how if he wins, he could “seek to pardon himself.”

And that’s it. The story moves along. As if that’s normal and would be the end of the saga.

In this opinion piece from Protect Democracy’s Ori Lev, he argues that the jawboning cases before the Supreme Court are “important in their own right, but they also come at a particularly pivotal time for American democracy. Public discourse and faith in democratic institutions are increasingly undermined by mis- and disinformation. And we are experiencing an era of extreme polarization punctuated by, among other things, a leading candidate for president openly running on a platform of retribution.”

This week, SCOTUS-watchers may have spotted an unusual filing. Nineteen retired four-star generals and admirals and former service secretaries submitted an amicus brief siding with Jack Smith on whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution. (Full disclosure: I am one of the lawyers representing them in the filing.)

Retired top brass is not a group that often weighs in at the Supreme Court. What led these military leaders to speak out?

Thanks to Donald Trump’s delay strategy — with an assist from the Supreme Court — the most important criminal trial in American history won’t happen until late summer at the earliest. That raises the question: is it… ok in a democracy to prosecute a presidential candidate during an election campaign?

As with so many things in law and democracy, the answer is — it depends!