Hooray for the Trump Republicans Who Saved the Republic—Or Not?

By David Corn  June 25, 2022

Former Trump Justice Department officials Steven Engel, Jeffrey Rosen, and Richard Donoghue are sworn in at the January 6 committee hearing on June 23, 2022. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

[Editors note: This newsletter was written before the Supreme Court killed Roe v. Wade. More on that later.]

It happened again. I was sitting in the Cannon Caucus Room during another January 6 investigation hearing, and I got angry. This time, the focus of the day was not the violent attack on the Capitol but Donald Trump’s post-election assault on the Justice Department. In late December 2020 and early January 2021, after the calculating and conniving Bill Barr had resigned as attorney general in disgust with Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat, Trump spent weeks pressuring the department to nullify the election results. He was unrelenting, continuously badgering acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to declare there had been widespread fraud and the tallies could not be trusted. Rosen and Donoghue repeatedly told Trump that the department had investigated various allegations and had found no evidence of any serious problems with the voting or the vote-counting.

Trump refused to listen. Instead, he attempted to replace Rosen with a Trump toady in DOJ named Jeffrey Clark, an environmental (or anti-environmental) attorney who had been pushing Rosen and Donoghue to send a letter to state officials noting the election was tainted with fraud and state legislatures should designate new slates of (pro-Trump) electors. Rosen and Donoghue resisted this effort to subvert the DOJ, believing it was deceitful and would be a disaster for the department and the nation. What might happen—what constitutional chaos, what violence—if the Justice Department pronounced an election rigged? Trump tried to muscle them into going along, and when he took steps to dump Rosen and install Clark (who was eager to proceed with this bogus scheme), Trump was only thwarted because most of the senior leadership of the department threatened to resign. In a dramatic showdown in the Oval Office on January 3, 2021, with Rosen, Clark, Donoghue, and White House lawyers present, Trump was told that such a move would prompt hundreds of resignations, and Clark would be “left leading a graveyard.” Thus ended Trump’s plan to corrupt the Justice Department to steal the election.

There’s a lot more to this bonkers story, and you can read my report on the hearing here. The testimony from Rosen and Donoghue—and a detailed report on this episode issued last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee—makes clear this was a damn close call. One might be tempted to say, “Hooray, the system worked!” Trump failed to turn the DOJ into a subsidiary of his reality-distorting and demagogic political operation. No such letter was sent to the states. And his idea to have nutbag attorney Sidney Powell, a chief purveyor of baseless conspiracy theories, named a special counsel was squashed, as was his request for the Justice Department to file a lawsuit challenging the election results. When White House chief of staff Mark Meadows asked Rosen and Donoghue to investigate the deranged, it’s-on-the-internet conspiracy theory that hackers supposedly associated with the CIA and MI6 had used an Italian satellite to change Trump votes to Biden votes, they ignored this insanity. (Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, however, did instruct the Pentagon’s attaché in Rome to look into this.) So, good news for the nation, the Trump crazy was blocked at the DOJ.

Yet...this hardly seems cause for celebration. While Trump was trying to abuse his power—and perhaps breaking the law by pushing the department to engage in a fraudulent action—the public was kept in the dark. He was allowed to keep bellowing about a stolen election—and to mislead tens of millions of Americans—with no push-back from senior government officials who knew he was disseminating disinformation (or from members of his own party who also knew). True, on December 1, 2020, Barr, while still AG, said publicly there were no signs of widespread electoral fraud. But then he took a powder. White House lawyers Pat Cipollone and Eric Herschmann, who, according to the hearings, sided with Rosen and Donoghue and recognized that Trump was lying to the nation, did not speak out at the time. (Cipollone has so far declined to cooperate with the January 6 committee; Herschmann gave a deposition.)

It can be argued that all these reality-connected Trump officials were busy during these harrowing weeks preventing Trump from pulling off the coup he was pursuing. One can see why Rosen had reason to stay put and not provide Trump the opportunity to name Clark as the acting attorney general. But imagine a scenario in which Trump officials and advisers —say, Cipollone—resigned their positions and openly challenged Trump’s lies about the election. At the least, Rosen could have held multiple press conferences noting the Justice Department had looked for and found no evidence of election fraud. Obviously, it was not easy for Rosen or Donoghue to take a stand against their president—and ditto for Brad Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling in Georgia and Rusty Bowers in Arizona. But with the republic possibly at stake, those Trump officials in Washington who knew Trump was dangerously conning the public ought to have done everything possible to counter his war on American democracy.

You might say, calm down,  it worked out. All’s well that ends well. Trump, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Steve Bannon, and the whole sick crew failed. Yes, but had Rosen not held firm, or had Trump disregarded the threat of mass resignations and shit-canned him, who knows? The political system of the United States should not depend on the fortitude of one guy who none of us had heard of before all this. Moreover, even though the republic did not collapse, Trump managed to pollute the nation’s political discourse by convincing millions to believe the lie that the election had been rigged to rob him of his victory. Trump delegitimized the results and the presidency of Joe Biden for many Americans, and that is not without consequences.

In the first draft of my report on the hearing, I wrote, “Once again, a thin line of Republican officials had blocked Trump from an unprecedented abuse of power.” My editor suggested we place the word “honorable” in front of “Republican.” No, I thought. As gutsy as Rosen and Donoghue might seem, they were just doing their jobs. Do you get special credit for not joining a coup? I suggested instead we call them “sticking-to-the-rules” Republicans. Which is what they were and they deserve our appreciation for that. We can be grateful to these Republicans (who had been happily serving in the administration of a lying, racist, divisive, hate-fueling president) for  not going along with the Trump putsch. But I’m not sure they deserve a parade. After all, they did enable a thuggish autocrat-wannabe in ways large and small before they finally said no to him.

But my anger was not directed at Rosen et. al. I was mad that once again Trump got away with it. Not that he succeeded in forcing the Justice Department to defy the popular will so he could retain power, but that there were no consequences for him trying to do so. This is partly because no one blew the whistle in real time. And until recently, Clark went unpunished, too. This past Wednesday, federal agents showed up at his home before dawn with a search warrant, put Clark outside in his pajamas, searched the premises, and seized his electronic devices. Finally, it seems, Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is zeroing in on Trump’s efforts to overturn the elections. It also dropped subpoenas on several Republicans who were involved in state-level efforts to thwart the certification of Biden’s victory.

 I’ve been critical of Garland for not telling the public whether the DOJ has been investigating Trump’s attempt to overthrow the US government. The American people deserve to know if its Justice Department is examining such a dangerous effort whether or not criminal indictments are filed—in the same way a special counsel issues a report describing his or her findings and prosecution decisions. That’s another column. In the meantime, my anger is eased a bit by the news of the Clark raid. But will this only replicate a scenario we’ve seen before? A Trump underling is nabbed, and Trump skates. Remember Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer. He went to prison for making an illegal $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to cover up her alleged tryst with Trump. He committed this crime, as federal prosecutors noted, at Trump’s instruction. What happened to Cohen’s criminal co-conspirator? Nada. Clark was Trump’s tool. If he’s nailed and Trump goes free—and remains the titular head of the GOP and its leading 2024 contender—we will have cause for anger and further reason to worry about what Trump might do to the Justice Department (and the nation) should he return to the Oval Office.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

[As noted above, the judges selected this week’s winner before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One of the many alarming aspects of that decision was Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, proposing that the court should “reconsider” past decisions that affirmed a right to contraception, legalized same-sex marriage, and ended laws that criminalized same-sex sex.]

A Supreme Court justice has never won this contest. But Clarence Thomas pulled off a first this week. Penning the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down laws limiting who can legally carry handguns in public, Thomas created a new and bizarre standard for gun safety measures. He wrote that for the government to establish any restriction on guns, it “must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historic tradition.” What the hell does that mean? If someone invents a gun that shoots nuclear bullets and the government wants to place limits on this weapon, must it find a historic corollary involving the regulation of muskets? In an interview with The New Yorker, Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and the author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, explained how Thomas’ new standard is full-out phony. Here are some of his most insightful observations:

In terms of the decision itself, what was notable about how the Court presented the history of the Second Amendment and guns?

Most notable is that the Court says it is going to look to history and tradition, but then ignores history and tradition. The Court says that only gun laws which have historical precedent are constitutionally permissible, and then the Court dismisses all of the historical precedents for heavy restrictions on concealed-carry laws as outliers. The Court says that it is going to look to history but dismisses early English common law as too old. The Court says that it is going to look to history but dismisses any laws that were adopted after the mid-eighteen-hundreds as too young. The Court says that it is looking to history, but also says that shall-issue permitting is constitutional, even though shall-issue permitting is a twentieth-century invention. So the Court says that it is doing history and tradition analysis, but conveniently ignores any history it doesn’t like.

In terms of picking and choosing historical precedents, is that out of the norm or a common feature of Court decisions?

This is singular. The Court says that history and tradition analysis is the way that constitutional rights should be analyzed. But all you have to do is go back to Tuesday’s decision on the funding of religious schools. The Court didn’t do any history and tradition analysis to show that there is a First Amendment requirement that states finance religious schools. [In the gun case,] the Court rejects the kind of interest-balancing that is commonplace in constitutional law more generally.

Once again, a conservative SCOTUS justice is engaging in judicial activism, creating rules out of thin air to justify an ideological position and, in this case, render it harder for the nation to deal with the epidemic of gun-violence that has placed all of us, especially our kids, at risk. Let’s put it simply: Thomas (and his wife Ginni) pose dire threats to the nation.

For our runner-up, we have a more conventional contender: Devin Nunes. Remember him? The onetime GOP congressman  from California who chaired the House Intelligence Committee and who was a leading Russia scandal denialist and who spread made-in-Moscow disinformation. He now runs Trump’s new social media platform, which is still floundering. Nunes “retruthed” a post on the site that referenced numerous conspiracy theories.

This guy once oversaw the intelligence community and was entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets? Sheesh. Perhaps after Trump bounces him from this position, Nunes can get a job running a QAnon site.

The Mailbag

In the last issue, I wondered aloud if Trump’s GOP is getting even crazier. Ed Rickless accused me of looking at the wrong end of the problem:

Hi David. It's deflective to write of the sickness of the Republican Party, when, it's the country that is sick. The Republican Party has around 30 percent of voters, and maybe half are the lunatic fringe. The lunatic fringe does not win elections. Democrats are losing significant support in Latino communities. (Florida, Texas). A party whose primary process is so strongly influenced by states they have no chance of winning is a real problem. AOC is a major problem, as is antifa. Throw in a Democratic Party that has allowed Mitch McConnell to bulldoze them at every turn (literally stealing in broad daylight two Supreme Court nominations). Throw in the current president who derailed his presidency before it even got started (Kabul), and then got us knee deep in this Ukrainian quagmire. You really have to wonder who is sanctioning who in this mess. 

I think I get his point. But I’m not sure that antifa and AOC are the problems. Ed seems to want a feistier and more confrontational Democratic Party. But that’s also what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants. Perhaps the difference is ideological, and Ed thinks a combative Democratic Party that doesn’t lean too far left is the key to success. I believe that wherever the party lands ideologically, what counts most is how it comports itself. Does it look like it’s fighting for you and slamming the bad guys? The Dems have had a tough time conveying that message, while trying to govern and deal with inflation, rising gas prices, and supply chain problems. What’s quite disturbing is how the Rs are polling ahead of the Democrats, even as the Party of Trump—which is responsible for an attempt to overturn a free and fair election, an insurrectionist attack on the US Capitol, and a profoundly mismanaged pandemic response that led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths—continues to fly off the rails.

Helen Kessler agrees with me:

What about the electorate that seems to be going for this craziness?  The fact that Trump polls ahead of Biden is the utter craziness. How can people be so gullible?  Could it be that they don’t read what you’re writing. They listen to their friends and get all their news from social media and Fox News. What can be done about the ignorance and the unwillingness to see the bullies and crazies right in front of their faces?  If they had watched [the January 6] hearings, they might have different feelings about Trump, but my guess is that they didn’t.

Helen, I’m flattered that you think my columns could change the views of Trump zombies. I doubt watching the J6 hearings will do the trick for that lot. About 30 percent of adult Americans identify as Republicans. The Rs cannot win elections without drawing others to their candidates. (Same for the Democrats.) So the critical question is not why members of Trump’s cult of personality stick with him—though that is something to wonder about. The troubling matter is why others vote for candidates from this party. The Democrats and others need to focus on that piece of the puzzle.

There were lots of responses to my suggestion that Elon Musk presents a danger to the nation. Mo Winograd writes:

Would the DOJ ever have cause to stop Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter on the grounds that he has made it clear he intends to prohibit free speech if he doesn't like what is being sent out? 

Musk claims he’s a free-speech advocate. I supposed that will be tested, should he come to own Twitter. But Twitter is a private company and can set its own rules about who has access to the platform. It does not have to guarantee free speech. Consequently, the Justice Department has no standing to intervene on those grounds. But it does seem that Musk may have to worry more about the SEC.

Richard Simon emails:

We should be grateful that Musk cannot run for president. 

Musk was born in Pretoria. So he can never be the chief executive of the United States. But perhaps one day he will buy it.

Sue Stadler has a query:

Thank you so very much for Our Land. It is so informative; and your insights give the news much more meaning. I’m certainly willing to pay a monthly fee for Our Land, but actually appreciate the abbreviated version that I now receive.  And I’m willing to pay a monthly fee for it as well.  Please let me know how to proceed.  Thank you again, for your wonderful dialogue. 

That’s a head-scratcher, Sue. I appreciate your kind words. I do not know if we have a subscription option that sends you only the abbreviated version that non-subscribers receive. The quick fix: subscribe and only read up until the end of the first item. Neither I nor Moxie will be offended.

Agi Lukacs had a logistical suggestion:

Please help us to click and put Our Land on Facebook. It is faster. So I am even more likely to do it. Love your stuff!

Thanks, Agi. Between you and me, part of the business plan for this newsletter—like most newsletters—is to make it a bit exclusive so people will indeed subscribe. Posting it on a website or zapping it out on Facebook would do the opposite. I’m heartened that people want to share what I write. It is rather encouraging. But the best thing to do, as I’ve mentioned before, is to forward the email to friends and foes, with the gentle suggestion they subscribe. (They can do so at www.davidcorn.com.) Of course, cutting and pasting portions of the newsletter into Facebook and other social media posts is more cumbersome but another way to help spread Our Land.

Bob Gold emails:

Moxie looks super cute when she's tousled and unkempt looking. IMHO, that is HER LOOK.

I’m sorry, Bob. Maybe you should skip MoxieCam™ this week.

MoxieCam™

I swear this is the same dog....And, Bob, it just gets too hot for her these days. You don’t want her hyperventilating during her work-out. She needs that summer cut.

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

June 21, 2022: Is Trump’s GOP getting even crazier?; George Carlin and the American Dream; Alexei Navalny’s nightmare; and more.

June 18,2022: Is Elon Musk more dangerous than Peter Thiel?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Lauren Boebert, again); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 14, 2022: From Watergate to Trump: Does the system really work?; a thrilling performance by Paul McCartney; how The Staircase apprehends its viewers; and more.

June 11, 2022: In the room where it happened: covering the January 6 committee’s hearing; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jesse Watters and others); my proudest moment in journalism; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 7, 2022: Barack Obama was right about the gun clingers; Special Emergency Dumbass Comment of the Week (Louie Gohmert); Our Land in Photos; the perfection of Better Call Saul; the sublime new album from Wilco; and more.

June 4, 2022: Are Democrats pathetic?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ken Buck); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 28, 2022: What to hope for after the Uvalde massacre; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Candace Owens); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 25, 2022: The anti-ness of the Trumpified right; Our Land in photos; Tokyo Vice vs. Miami Vice; Sarah Shook and what makes a song cool; and more.

May 21, 2022: Why a threat to Pennsylvania is a threat to us all; Dumbass Comment of the Week (saying goodbye to Madison Cawthorn); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.