Trump’s Latest Coup Attempt
David Shuster on the Trump DOJ’s failed attempt to criminalize Congress—and what it means for democracy.
By David Shuster
For all the turmoil Donald Trump has inflicted on our nation in his 2nd Presidential term, last week’s revelation that his Department of Justice sought to indict sitting members of Congress for advising members of the U.S. military to disobey unlawful orders should rank among the most ominous.
This wasn’t merely politicized legal brinkmanship. It was an attempted coup by prosecutorial fiat, one that was luckily stymied by a grand jury panel of ordinary citizens.
The panel was asked to return criminal charges against members of Congress who produced a video that did nothing more incendiary than restate the oath sworn by every recruit who has ever put on the uniform. Their crime, apparently, was to suggest that the Constitution is not a decorative pamphlet but binding law.
The six culprits were not campus activists or marxist revolutionaries. They were, inconveniently, veterans and national security professionals: Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly; Representatives Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio. Their message was plain: members of the armed forces have a duty to refuse unlawful commands. It was the sort of sentiment one might expect to find on a military recruiting poster.
To the lunatic mind of Trump, however, this constituted a subversive threat. Trump publicly demanded the lawmakers be punished for “traitorous” conduct. On social media, Trump even claimed the democrats were guilty of “seditious behavior punishable by death.”
Unhinged rhetoric is one thing. Using the Justice Department — an agency meant to be independent of personal politics — to pursue criminal charges against elected members of another branch of government is quite another.
And that takes us Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.
Under orders from Bondi, Pirro took material from the video and sought a grand jury criminal indictment. According to multiple reports, Pirro and her team of prosecutors told the grand jurors the six lawmakers had undermined the “loyalty, morale, or discipline” of the armed forces — a phrase so elastic it could ensnare anyone who has ever cracked a joke about a general.
And then something extraordinary occurred: the grand jury refused to indict.
It is worth underscoring that grand juries are not famous for their rebellious spirit. There is that old saying that a prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Indeed, once prosecutors present charges, the rate at which grand juries return true bills is extraordinarily high. That’s why this rebuff is so newsworthy. In this case, ordinary citizens, anonymous Washington, D.C. residents, rejected the government’s theory and declined to convert political speech into a felony. The panel determined that the DOJ’s case, no matter how politically charged, did not rise to the level of criminal conduct.
Still, let’s be clear about what the Trump administration attempted. This was not just a case of overzealous prosecution. It was a Trump/Bondi effort—however clumsy—to use the machinery of criminal law against members of a coequal branch of government for articulating a constitutional principle.
If that is not a species of coup, then the word has lost its meaning. A coup need not be accompanied by military forces or January 6 oath keepers storming the capitol and attacking capitol police; it may proceed by subpoena.
The American system depends on friction. Congress is meant to irritate the executive; the executive is meant to frustrate Congress; the courts are meant to vex them both. Out of this mutual annoyance comes liberty. When one branch seeks to criminalize the speech of another, it is not engaging in friction. It is reaching for domination.
Defenders of Trump now insist that no harm was done — that the grand jury’s refusal proves the system works. And yes, for the moment, the guardrails have held. But it is worth remembering that a bank robber who points a gun at a bank teller, gets thwarted, and fails to steal bags full of cash has still attempted armed robbery.
The fact that the citizens of Washington, D.C., refused to indict the six members of Congress does not erase the insidious Trump appetite that inspired this prosecution effort.
Indeed, the more troubling question is what happens next time. We’ve seen with Trump that when he finds the courts inconvenient, he and his goons seek other avenues.
They have engaged in administrative harassment, endless investigations, the stripping of security clearances, and the ignoring of court orders. The Trump team thrives on power and has never shown restraint.
It is part of a broader Trump administration pattern. Over the past year, Trump and his agents have displayed a casual relationship with constitutional constraints — particularly those contained in the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The press is denounced as enemy; searches and seizures are defended with elastic interpretations; equal protection is treated as an optional accessory.
Each maneuver, promoted and defended by Trump sycophants including Karoline Leavitt, is justified as necessary, urgent, and patriotic. Each chips away at our constitutional republic.
Democracies seldom perish in a blaze. They expire from neglect, from the steady normalization of the outrageous. What would have provoked outrage a few days ago becomes today’s mere partisan skirmish and tomorrow’s settled practice.
The attempted indictment of six lawmakers for urging obedience to lawful authority is not merely another headline. It is a test balloon. It asks whether the public will tolerate the conversion of disagreement into criminality. For now, a grand jury has answered no. But grand juries are summoned case by case. Vigilance must be continuous.
The U.S. Constitution, while a stubborn document, is not self-executing. It relies on citizens who prefer law over tyranny. And it depends on officials who recognize that power is a public trust, not a trophy.
Donald Trump and his sycophants at the Department of Justice sought to imprison lawmakers for repeating the plain meaning of the military’s constitutional oath. The Trump effort was imperialistic and reeked of fascism.
This week, ordinary citizens blocked that Trump endeavor
The rejection is cause for relief, not complacency.
If what tRUMP says is punishable by death, he should have been put to death at 50 effing times by now the treasonous POS!
"Seditious behavior punishable by death"-Donald Trump
I would like those words to come back to bite him.