You’re reading The Briefing, Michael Waldman’s weekly newsletter. Click here to receive it in your inbox.
We are united in dismay about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, about the rally attendees who were killed or wounded, and about this latest eruption of violence in the political process. From what we know, the attacker seems to have not had political motives. Rather, he seems all too typical: a young man, possibly troubled, with access to a weapon of war.
As the Brennan Center has written, threats of violence across the political spectrum have been rising for years. High-profile individuals, from Rep. Steve Scalise to Paul Pelosi to, now, the former president, have been victims. Countless other officials at the national, state, and local levels face threats. And of course, there was the mass violence of January 6. All that is unacceptable in a democracy. Ballots, not bullets, should determine our nation’s direction.
We pause respectfully to reflect on the risks that public officials take in this hyper-violent era. But the news didn’t take a pause — a pair of events quickly reminded us of how much is at stake in the great fight for democracy.
On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, who presides over Trump’s federal prosecution for the mishandling of classified documents and obstruction of justice, declared that the indictment was void because Special Counsel Jack Smith had been unconstitutionally appointed. Together with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling two weeks ago, Cannon’s decision created a zone of accountability-free lawlessness for future chief executives.
This is a truly radical decision. For decades, attorneys general have had the power to name special counsels to investigate politically sensitive matters. The Supreme Court, in the course of granting presidents immunity from legal accountability, took it for granted that Smith’s appointment was lawful. That has been the ruling of the Supreme Court and many, many other courts for decades. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence, said he thought that Smith was illegally appointed.
Still, the Supreme Court, in making its outlandish immunity ruling two weeks ago, sent a strong signal to lower court judges: let your freak flag fly.
The court of appeals should swiftly, unanimously, and unambiguously overturn Cannon’s decision, as it did one of her previous decisions in this case. But who knows? The Federalist Society judges are having a wild rumpus right now.
There’s a party going on in Milwaukee, too, where another advocate for an all-powerful executive is ascendant.
Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance is now the Republican Party’s vice presidential nominee. Of the identified finalists for the slot, he was by far the most willing to bend constitutional norms in the service of presidents, and this president. Vance has said he would not have done what Mike Pence did — he would have refused to certify the 2020 election results. He is a big proponent of the Big Lie, peddling false claims of voter fraud and noncitizen voting.
Vance, author of the memoir Hillbilly Elegy, looks to forge a potent new populism. He has been outspoken in support of antitrust enforcement and other measures that run counter to the typical business–lobbyist agenda of his party. It’s worth remembering, though, that his political rise was bankrolled by one tech billionaire, Peter Thiel, who had sponsored his Senate candidacy as if he were a prize racehorse. Vance’s rapid rise tells the story of the equally rapid collapse of campaign finance laws. (He’s the hillbilly from Silicon Valley.)
Cannon and Vance are complicated personalities, but the great contest underway in this country is not about individual judges, candidates, or even parties, but about ideas — and about the idea of American democracy itself.
I happened to be in Milwaukee for a wedding this past weekend. Visitors arriving at the airport are currently greeted by a huge display: “Heritage welcomes you to the RNC Convention.” So much for Trump’s claims, which I wrote about last week, that he never heard of Project 2025 or the people at the Heritage Foundation who wrote it.
His dodge reflects something encouraging and a bit surprising. The public has actually heard about Project 2025, a nearly 900-page, dense policy book — a detailed plan for a shift toward authoritarianism. Last week more people googled “Project 2025” than “Taylor Swift.” This was driven by young people on social media, educating themselves. Politicians have begun to critique it as well.
As the country catches its breath and tries to understand the roots of violence, we’re not going to back down in our own effort to make sure that the threats to democracy are understood and the fight for the country we love continues.
