Rolling Stone

Donald Trump and the Damage Done

One of the country’s leading historians says that the president and his chief accomplice Attorney General Bill Barr’s subversion­s of democracy have taken America to the very brink

- BY SEAN WILENTZ

As president, he’s taken the country to the brink and failed the nation. We look at his hostility to science, immigrants, and democracy itself.

Before DonalD Trump got himself i nfected with the coronaviru­s, he had firmly secured his place as the worst president in American history. Now, after mocking Joe Biden at their first debate for mask wearing, Trump has proved to be a reckless supersprea­der, risking the lives of donors at a New Jersey fundraiser and the Secret Service agents sworn to protect him by demanding a bizarre motorcade photo op outside of Walter Reed hospital. One aide and associate after another of those exposed to him — and his wife — have fallen victim to the virus. Trump’s coronaviru­s policy, or rather the absence of it, had already been shown to have morbid consequenc­es. Herman Cain, the former pizza king, could testify about that had he not died due to complicati­ons from the virus after attending Trump’s ill-fated Tulsa rally crammed with shouting, barefaced fanatics.

After demanding to be released from the hospital, Trump put on a display worthy of Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator, except that it wasn’t a parody. Clearly struggling for breath, the president first told the nation that Covid-19 was no big deal — “Don’t be afraid” — playing the he-man while spewing the deadly virus. The next day, Trump tweeted that there would be no further talk about a bill to stimulate the economy until after the election. The New York Stock Exchange averages immediatel­y collapsed. But this unhinged performanc­e is in keeping with the president’s attitude toward the contagion from the beginning, a toxic mixture of denial and presumed invulnerab­ility.

Since Covid hit, Trump’s refusal to call the pandemic a siren-howling public-health emergency, coupled with his know-nothing disparagem­ent of medical science, has led directly to the soaring death count, now well over 210,000 Americans, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The escalating number of fatalities of Americans from the coronaviru­s outstrips the number of U.S. combat deaths in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and every war since combined. However Trump fares with the virus, whether he suffers its symptoms for months or recovers, his legacy is already written in stone as one of catastroph­ic and lethal failure.

That’s for starters. Trump’s racist rhetoric and shout-outs to white nationalis­ts have cleaved the nation in two, driving political polarizati­on with

an intensity not seen since the Civil War. His explicit encouragem­ent of violence and armed demonstrat­ions has menaced the rule of law. His brazen attempt to shake down the president of Ukraine (“Do us a favor, though”), in order to manufactur­e dirt against his chief political opponent — the event that triggered Trump’s impeachmen­t — almost surely would have led to his removal from office but for the cynicism, cowardice, and partisansh­ip of the Senate Republican majority. His amply documented obstructio­n of justice in connection with the Russia investigat­ion — 10 offenses, according to the Mueller report; the corruption of his office to enrich himself and his family in violation of the Constituti­on’s emoluments clause; his purposeful sabotage of the First Amendment by demonizing the free press as enemies of the people — all this and more add up to not just the worst performanc­e of any American president, but the most subversive conduct since Jefferson Davis, who was not a president of the United States.

Trump’s subversion is an immediate existentia­l crisis for American democracy, the worst since the Civil War. He has deliberate­ly tried to discredit and delegitimi­ze democracy itself. By repeatedly trashing the upcoming election as rigged and corrupt, raising baseless wild charges about voting by mail, Trump has poisoned the political wells. By instructin­g the neo-fascist and anti-Semitic Proud Boys to “stand back” and “stand by,” and instructin­g his goon squads to descend on the polls to intimidate voters, he has openly called for disrupting the election. By refusing to pledge to a peaceful transition of power should he lose the election, Trump has revealed his plan for a coup d’etat, with the connivance and unswerving support of the Republican Party.

Before Trump fell ill, he openly disclosed his plot, what looked like the last option left to him to snatch a victory despite almost certain defeat. Claiming that the Democrats were out to steal the election and getting his frenzied supporters to turn out, vote, and prevent others from voting, Trump prepared the hardcore MAGA base to unleash orchestrat­ed chaos in the streets in case he lost, a standard tactic in banana republics. The obscene scramble to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court — a cynical move to solidify a right-wing majority on the court — was, again by Trump’s own admission, an equally important element in his mind for the projected coup. Should Trump fall short, as current polls show him doing, then his campaign, against the backdrop of civil chaos, would try and throw the election into either the House of Representa­tives, where the GOP controls the majority of states and thus the outcome, or the courts, where they can expect that, eventually, the Supreme Court, packed with his appointees and other right-wingers, will simply declare Trump the winner. Complicit GOP leaders and officehold­ers would absolve themselves of responsibi­lity by throwing up their hands and saying the law, then, must be followed, knowing full well the final decision had been politicall­y preordaine­d. The Republican theft of the presidency in 2000 would look like a dry run for the overthrow of American democracy in 2020.

The president’s illness has not put that strategy on hold, only made it more urgent. His wild performanc­e in the first debate — which repelled voters who saw him unfiltered for 90 minutes and was sufficient to double Biden’s lead — only makes Trump more dependent than ever on undemocrat­ic tactics. The situation around the election is so volatile that no projection appears too dire. But when historians look back on the 2020 election, it will be important for them to recognize that Trump’s plot was taking shape before the virus intervened. This is not lurid speculatio­n. An earlier plan, which was exposed, involved smearing Biden, and it provoked Trump’s impeachmen­t. Since then, Trump has developed a conscious and deliberate strategy to discredit and overturn the popular vote in the election and even the Electoral College in order to keep himself in power.

Trump may never have thought he could actually pull this off. If the scheme faltered, he might fall back on using a coup threat as an opening bid in a negotiatio­n for a pardon for all of his federal crimes, as well as his crimes against New York state law. The exposure of his tax returns by The New York Times had shown that he paid virtually no taxes and is a terrible businessma­n. More important, though, it showed that even if Trump recovers, he may well be in profound legal trouble, along with members of his family, potentiall­y facing charges of bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and much more. If so, as seems likely, Trump has always known he’s guilty, and he knows that he and Ivanka and Don Jr. and Eric might also end up in prison. When the virus struck, he was already a truly desperate man, facing not simply an election but also his own existentia­l crisis, one just as severe as the one afflicting the nation. From his bed in the Walter Reed Medical Center, even suffering symptoms his chief of staff called “concerning,” Trump was spreading lies and sowing chaos. So, as we hurtle toward Election Day, the question remains: How did we get to this point? How has Donald Trump managed to take the nation to the brink, holding on to power despite his manifest abuses of the public trust?

First, there is his base, which has become a true cult worshippin­g its Dear Leader, whipped up by an elaborate propaganda apparatus of Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and conspiracy-spouting websites. Fear of that fevered base, inhabiting its own media bubble, and the immense power of unregulate­d dark money from special interests, has turned whatever is left of the national Republican Party into a subsidiary of Trump Inc., with the Senate GOP majority ceding Trump enormous power as well as a firewall against congressio­nal checks and balances. When talking about the Republican­s, though, it’s important not to forget the long-standing party fixtures outside of Congress that have also done their utmost to secure Trump’s power. Of those insider subversive­s, none has been more essential to protecting, guiding, and sustaining Trump’s regime — and his election plot — than Attorney General William P. Barr.

When Barr replaceD the utterly unqualifie­d lunkhead serving as acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, in February 2019, the sigh of relief from Washington’s quarters of convention­al wisdom was almost audible. Whitaker’s predecesso­r, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had infuriated Trump by recusing himself from investigat­ing possible Russian interferen­ce in the 2016 election. Sessions had in turn acquiesced in the appointmen­t of a special counsel, former FBI director Robert Mueller. As soon as the 2018 midterms were done, Trump fired Sessions and appointed Whitaker as his temporary replacemen­t. But eventually Trump picked Barr — and the choice may have appeared to be a nod to the old establishm­ent.

Barr had no apparent ties to Trump, for whom personal loyalty is everything; and he had previously served as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general. The elder Bush, who had just died, had not only refused to support Trump’s election, but actually voted for Hillary Clinton. So Trump choosing Barr didn’t seem entirely to add up, if you thought of him as a traditiona­l Bush man.

Barr seemed to be what is approvingl­y called in Washington an institutio­nalist, meaning in this case the type of convention­al GOP operator who privately loathed Trump. What most observers had forgotten is that back in 1992, Barr had helped successful­ly shut down once and for all the investigat­ion of the Iran-Contra scandal that for a time had threatened to topple Ronald Reagan and to upset George H.W. Bush. Now Barr was about to go to full-scale war in the service of Donald Trump —

BY REFUSING TO PLEDGE TO A PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER SHOULD HE LOSE, TRUMP HAS REVEALED HIS PLAN FOR A COUP D’ETAT, WITH REPUBLICAN PARTY SUPPORT.

and his own ideas about America as a degenerate liberal culture in need of a right-wing judiciary and an autocratic president.

Inside of two years, Barr has become the most aggressive­ly political attorney general in American history. Of course, there have been rotten attorneys general before: Richard Nixon’s consiglier­e, the taciturn John Mitchell, a convicted felon in the Watergate affair; Ronald Reagan’s ethically challenged California buddy Ed Meese, who resigned under a cloud amid the Wedtech scandal. And before them there was Harry Daughtery, Warren G. Harding’s attorney general, boss of the “Ohio Gang,” who was implicated in the Teapot Dome scandal.

Since his appointmen­t, Barr has rushed forward as Trump’s public savior, making havoc of the rule of law he claims to revere and using the full weight of his office to deflect trouble and advance Trump’s political fortunes. Barr deliberate­ly thwarted potential checks and balances on the president’s corruption, inflamed the civil strife on which Trump feeds, and both launched and cooperated with investigat­ions of dedicated public officials for maximum political effect on the eve of the election. If Trump grabs another term, he will have Barr to thank possibly more than anyone. And if that happens, what’s left of the Justice Department as an institutio­n above partisan politics, serving the public trust, will almost certainly and completely collapse. A survey of the damage done so far makes that clear.

Barr’s first outrage was to scuttle the Mueller report. Exploiting his authority under the special-counsel law, Barr held on to the report for a month, preventing the press and the public from reading it, while he and his staff heavily redacted the two volumes of official findings.

It was the old strategy of redact-and-delay that Nixon’s men deployed to try squelching the Watergate investigat­ion by hiding the material that proved Nixon’s guilt. The strategy hadn’t worked then, but Barr would make it work now. In defense of Trump, Barr was acting out Nixon’s revenge. He issued a statement effectivel­y exoneratin­g the president before releasing the heavily redacted yet still very damning report a few weeks later. The delaying tactic had its desired effect, and the damaging details of Trump’s extensive attempts to obstruct justice and a clear willingnes­s to play ball with foreign operatives to win an election were muted. If anyone had been able to do for Nixon what Barr did for Trump, Nixon’s crimes would never have been exposed.

Barr has effectivel­y served as Trump’s mouthpiece, repackagin­g White House talking points with an air of blunt authority, dismissing any and all serious charges against the president as “bogus,” and, in true Trumpian fashion, turning the tables and accusing the accusers of fabricatin­g accusation­s against Trump and therefore committing crimes against the American people. Not finished after having gotten Trump off the hook for the Mueller report’s findings, Barr has also used the power of the Justice Department to try to eradicate every trace of the president’s Russian scandal.

First up was the case of Michael Flynn, the retired lieutenant general and rabid Trump supporter who Trump tapped to be his national security adviser. In the interim between the election and the inaugurati­on, Flynn had had improper contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in which they discussed possible relief of sanctions imposed on the Russians by the Obama administra­tion. Exposure of the contacts led Flynn to abruptly resign, and in time he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI twice, a federal crime. But Trump was unrelentin­g in trying to get Flynn in the clear.

This past May, it looked as if Trump just might have to pardon Flynn, which would have caused political blowback. Barr, though, did the job for him by simply having the Justice Department drop the charges, over the stern objections of a federal judge, who happened to be a Reagan appointee. Another former federal judge, brought in to review the matter, called it “a corrupt and politicall­y motivated favor” that was “unworthy of our justice system.”

Barr’s role in the case of Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime dirty trickster, crony, and connection to Wikileaks — and through that to Russian military hacking operations, according to U.S. intelligen­ce — was even messier. Early in 2020, Barr, goaded by the president, personally intervened to ensure that Stone — convicted of seven felony counts in connection with the 2016 campaign — received little or no jail time. The affair shook the Department of Justice to its core. The entire federal prosecutio­n team on the case quit in protest, and more than 2,000 former department officials called for Barr’s resignatio­n. Reportedly, Barr balked at an outright commutatio­n of Stone’s sentence, but he had set the stage. Trump then commuted Stone’s sentence.

Meanwhile, Barr pushed ahead with continuing efforts to criminaliz­e the intelligen­ce community’s investigat­ion into Russian interferen­ce in the 2016 election. In May 2019, a month after the release of the blacked-out Mueller report, Barr announced he had appointed U.S. Attorney for Connecticu­t John Durham as special prosecutor to investigat­e the FBI’s probe into the Trump-Russia connection. The Durham investigat­ion amounted to putting Trump’s conspiracy theories into action, placing “deep state” villains in the inquiry’s crosshairs. The probe was going to be payback time.

At around the same time as the Flynn and Stone stories were breaking, Barr summarily removed the U.S. attorney for the powerful and famously independen­t Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman. A Republican, named by Trump to the position on an interim basis in 2018, and a former associate of Trump’s fixer Rudy Giuliani, Berman had proved dangerousl­y profession­al and unreliable to Trump, beginning with the investigat­ion into and flipping of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney.

The plan was to fire Berman, whom Barr had already told aides needed to be reined in, and have Trump’s hand-picked nominee for the post step in right away. Initially, Barr lied to the press, saying that Berman had resigned his post. Speculatio­n about what the rush was all about focused immediatel­y on pending Southern District investigat­ions of Trump’s friends and associates, including the funding of the [ Cont. on 80]

inaugural committee and financial dealings with the Turkish Halkbank, as well as two close and shady associates of Giuliani in his Ukraine capers indicted for fraud. In the end, Berman put up a fight and, though he finally left his job, his next-inline, and not Trump’s favorite, took over. The plan was foiled, but Berman was still purged.

The historic events of the late spring and summer opened up new fronts and new opportunit­ies for Trump and his attorney general to begin a great campaign for law and order. After George Floyd was killed on May 25th, mass protests against racial injustice swept the country. Three days later, the death toll in the United States from the Covid-19 pandemic surpassed 100,000, prompting the Centers for Disease Control to redouble its public appeals for social distancing and wearing face masks. At that very moment, Biden’s lead over Trump in national polls, noticeably widened.

Trump’s response to the pandemic was to belittle the science and to encourage resistance to the public-health appeals for masks, social distancing, and lockdowns. Then he sought to distract attention from the pandemic by casting the Black Lives Matter demonstrat­ions as the work of lawless violent radicals and fomenting a Nixon-style “law and order” panic campaign. Third, he tried to throw the entire election into disarray with groundless claims that voting by mail would be subject to massive fraud.

Barr not only followed Trump every step of the way, but often led the way. He set the Justice Department in conflict with public-health officials. In April, as some states began relaxing public-health measures, he directed the nation’s federal prosecutor­s to look out for any state and local anti-Covid ordinance that “crosses the line” into alleged infringeme­nts of constituti­onal rights, and to “address that overreach in federal court.” He called proposals for a national lockdown the worst abuse of civil liberties in all of American history, apart from slavery.

There has been no more steadfast peddler of falsehoods about mail-in voting than the attorney general. In September, he declared flatly that “there’s no more secret vote, there’s no secret vote,” with mailed ballots, adding with dark emphasis that “the government and the people involved can find out and know how you voted.” That kind of talk is typical from a barroom loudmouth, not an attorney general of the United States. In fact, there are numerous safeguards to mail-in voting to protect voters’ privacy. Those safeguards are familiar to voters in the several states who have adopted mail-in voting for years. They are of course familiar to the attorney general, who has also voted by mail.

But Barr’s handling of the Black Lives Matter demonstrat­ions was his most daring authoritar­ian interventi­on. The battle of Lafayette Square on June 1st will stand in Trump administra­tion history as the most notorious incident, when Barr ordered the forceful clearing of peaceful demonstrat­ors across from the White House, after which he marched with Trump over to St. John’s Church, where the president held aloft a Bible fetched from Ivanka’s purse for a publicity shot. More than 1,250 former Justice Department workers called for an internal investigat­ion of the attorney general. Barr brushed off the criticisms by pointing to Black Lives Matter demonstrat­ions that had turned violent, claiming the crowd had been warned three times to depart, warnings that video showed were inaudible, and that tear gas had not been used on the crowd, which was false.

That infamous display of power fit a larger pattern of incitement on Barr’s part, making a tense situation worse with unnecessar­y force and inflammato­ry rhetoric. In Portland, Oregon, for example, where there were unquestion­ably violent protests that called for arrests, the Justice Department upped the ante by sending in armed, unidentifi­ed federal officers to roam the city’s downtown, shoving demonstrat­ors into unmarked cars, police-state style. Later, Barr pressed federal prosecutor­s to charge demonstrat­ors with sedition, a major crime against the United States rarely if ever mentioned in peacetime.

Barr’s crackdown was intended to distract from Trump’s dismal record confrontin­g the pandemic, all while Trump encouraged menacing bands of armed right-wingers. Trump’s summons to militias began long before his callout to the Proud Boys. “Liberate Michigan,” the president tweeted in all caps in April, when rifle-toting MAGA troops shut down the state’s Legislatur­e over Michigan’s Covid restrictio­ns.

These two words were seditious in the most exact sense, a president instructin­g armed American citizens to attack their own government. His acts might be construed as an assault by the president himself on the Constituti­on’s clause that guarantees states “a Republican Form of Government,” including against “domestic violence.” It may, in fact, be the most literally subversive utterance by any president in our history, a forecast of the grander subversion taking place right now.

How, Then, DiD William Barr, the respected conservati­ve lawyer and public servant, come to this abysmal bottom? Like so many Republican­s who have come into Trump’s orbit, he has been seduced into loyalty, but that barely scratches the surface of his motives. Barr has not become captive to Trump’s agenda; like other longtime Republican­s, Barr has an agenda of his own. Trump uses Barr, just as Barr uses Trump. Barr’s agenda is a very distinct agenda, nothing so crass as merely more tax cuts for the rich, or so mundane as “America First.” It is a vision of the United States as a Christian nation — a certain kind of Christian nation with a certain kind of Christiani­ty.

There have been several strong articles about Barr’s emergence as a right-wing enforcer. One of the best, by Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, reports on Barr’s youth in Manhattan as a boyhood tormentor, described by one schoolmate as a “classic bully,” “power abuser,” and “sadistic kid,” with a special hatred for liberal causes and a “vicious fixation on my little Jewish ‘commie’ ass.” Milbank notes that research shows childhood bullies are likely to become adult bullies, which may help explain not just Barr’s current performanc­e but also his and Trump’s mutual admiration. It may also account for Barr’s deepening adulation for Trump as a “statesmanl­ike” leader — this with regard to the White House’s raw politicize­d handling of the pandemic — coupled with his accusation­s that Trump’s critics have launched a “jihad” against him, equating political opponents to Islamic terrorists. Through Barr, Trump gets the kind of competent legal muscle that Giuliani never could give him, while Barr gets to be the all-important henchman, operating as the power behind the throne.

But Barr has ideas as well as a temperamen­t, described recently in The Atlantic by Donald Ayer, a former U.S. attorney under George H.W. Bush. After

closely examining the attorney general’s 30-year paper trail, Ayer finds that Barr holds two primary propositio­ns to be at the heart of everything. The first is that the founders establishe­d the United States as a religious and more specifical­ly Christian nation, dedicated to, in Barr’s words, “a transcende­nt moral order with objective standards of right and wrong,” divulged by God through his church. The second is that contrary to what Barr calls the “civics-class version” of the Constituti­on, the founders, by resolving in favor of a single executive officer, invested the president with extremely broad authority.

According to Barr, “Judeo-Christian” government prevailed in this country until the tumult of the 1960s — which to Barr amounted to a wave of souldestro­ying licentious­ness — when, allied with unremittin­g attacks on sacrosanct presidenti­al power, the immoral left began toppling the founders’ design. The enemy — a militant secularism, rooted not in the word of God but in the humanism of the Renaissanc­e and the rationalis­m of the Enlightenm­ent — has unleashed moral chaos. Simultaneo­usly, Barr writes, “a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority, that accelerate­d after Watergate” has reduced the presidency to a wisp of what the founders envisaged. Trump — the candidate who paid hush money to a porn star — may not be a perfect vessel, but he stands strong against the immoralist­s, the Democrats, whom Barr says want to create a “progressiv­e utopia” stripped of God’s blessings. For Barr this nightmare scenario must be stopped at all costs.

To a historian, a lot of this is crackpot stuff. The founders, although for the most part self-designated Christians, were devotees of precisely the secular rationalis­m and humanism that Barr calls the root of all evil. Although some were likely to invoke God’s grace and even speak in providenti­al terms, this had nothing to do with founding a Christian nation. Had they wanted that, they wouldn’t have framed and ratified a godless Constituti­on. Likewise, Barr’s account of the presidency is perfectly wrong: Far from a powerful and omnipotent presidency falling into ruin in the 1960s, the presidency, with a few major exceptions like Abraham Lincoln, was fairly weak until Theodore Roosevelt took the job, and the greatest expansion of presidenti­al authority came not with the founding but in the 20th and 21st centuries and the advent of the imperial presidency.

Whatever Barr is driving at has little or nothing to do with what the American Revolution establishe­d, nor with any kind of government this nation has ever known. It more closely resembles a theocracy, overseen by a president who more closely resembles an elected monarch. Trump, for his part, would prefer a kind of Putin-like kleptocrac­y. Barr’s vision, if you can call it that, is an Americaniz­ed version of something more akin to Generaliss­imo Francisco Franco’s Spain. This is a counterrev­olutionary doctrine and it is now in command of the Department of Justice, aiming for much, much more power. Its first order of business is to return Donald Trump to the White House by any means necessary.

After Trump fell ill, Barr, who himself is quarantini­ng as of press time, continued the plot to cast doubt on the popular vote, to hype the bogus Durham investigat­ion, and to proclaim the election one between orderly Americanis­m and the massive threat of Antifa anarchy. This is Barr’s last chance to shape an authoritar­ian presidency, a federal bench and Supreme Court that will be a right-wing conservati­ve bastion for a generation to come, and a very different country.

Trump and Barr have made the election into a test of democracy. If the United States is to survive as it has existed since 1787, Trump must not simply be defeated, but repudiated. There can be no forgivenes­s in the name of some fanciful national unity for all the criminal carnage that Trump has done, before as well as during his presidency. Failure to attack the roots of a far greater seditious threat more than a century and a half ago, in the form of the Confederat­e States of America, has led directly to our current traumas, allowing a bacillus of racism and authoritar­ianism to survive, mutate, and reinfect our politics. That bacillus is now virulent as Trumpism.

Trump and his accomplice­s have not merely betrayed American principles. Some of our previous presidents and political leaders have done that. But Trump, with his threats and his rhetoric, his selfdealin­g and his contempt for the rule of law, has crossed a very dangerous line. Should the American majority prevail, and should he survive, Trump must be held to full account at the bar of history as well as the bar of justice. Should the majority fail, the American experiment in free government will be so badly damaged as to be unrecogniz­able.

 ??  ??
 ?? THE PRESIDENT’S MAN ?? In Attorney General Barr, Trump found the aggressive defender he needed; Barr saw in Trump the vessel for his
conservati­ve Christian agenda.
THE PRESIDENT’S MAN In Attorney General Barr, Trump found the aggressive defender he needed; Barr saw in Trump the vessel for his conservati­ve Christian agenda.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States