Deborah Daniels: Rule of law in this country is under attack

The rule of law, without which our democracy cannot survive, is in grave peril.

The reason is not that a Democratic prosecutor in New York brought a case against Donald Trump that required the jury to weave its way through a labyrinth of legal and factual issues, though that is true.

Nor is it that the judge in the case was biased against the defendant. Any objective analysis reveals that the judge conducted the trial in an unbiased fashion.

Nor is it due to wrongdoing or bias on the part of the jury. The jurors included several readers of The Wall Street Journal, at least one viewer of Fox News, and at least one person who follows Trump on Trump Social. The jury had a difficult assignment but clearly took its job seriously and rendered a verdict based on the evidence.

The threat stems from the reactions of Trump and his followers to the outcome of the trial, and their likely impact on the public.

A potentially appropriate statement? “We strenuously disagree with the premise of the case as well as the verdict. But we respect the jury process and the judicial system. We are confident we will win this case on appeal.”

That’s not what they said.

Before the verdict was announced, Republican Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland posted: “Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.” A very appropriate statement.

But a Trump senior adviser immediately responded, “You just ended your campaign.”

Lara Trump, Trump’s daughter-in-law and now co-chair of the Republican National Committee, commented, “He shouldn’t have said that. … That’s ridiculous.” Ridiculous? To call for respect for the rule of law?

Worse, the Republican running to replace Hogan as governor actually called for public censure of Hogan “for his despicable and disgusting announcement.” Really?

I am particularly stunned and saddened by the reactions of some of our Indiana Republicans. One, essentially unopposed in his run for the once dignified and prestigious U.S. Senate, said the trial was “truly banana republic stuff,” and then referred to New York as a “liberal sh**-hole.”

Is this what now passes for appropriate political discourse?

Of course, he was parroting a term he learned from none other than Trump, who complained while president about all the immigrants coming from “sh**-hole countries.”

Other Indiana representatives referred to a “corrupt, two-tiered system” and a “Soviet show trial.” Officeholders throughout the country trotted out the evidence-free “weaponized Justice Department” trope—though this was not even a Justice Department case.

The Democrats pose a similar threat as they attack conservative members of the Supreme Court, undermining the court’s decisions by alleging political bias. Sen. Chuck Schumer, before Dobbs v. Jackson was even decided, shouted: “I want to tell you, [Justice Neil] Gorsuch. I want to tell you, [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Our democracy relies not only on a strong and fair judicial system but also, just as importantly, on the public’s trust in the objectivity and fairness of that system and its respect for those who administer it. At the point where the people no longer believe the judicial system is fair, we are headed toward autocracy.•

__________

Daniels is a retired partner of Krieg DeVault LLP, a former U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. attorney general and former president of the Sagamore Institute. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.

Click here for more Forefront columns.