Our Nixonian Moment

Our Nixonian Moment

The prosecution of former FBI director James Comey is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

(Former FBI Director James Comey testifying before Congress in 2017. | SOURCE: Doug Mills/New York Times)

Nothing embodies America’s steady drift into authoritarianism than the prosecution of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey. On September 25th, Mr. Comey was indicted on politically motivated charges of making a false statement to Congress and of obstructing a congressional proceeding. This prosecution threatens the integrity of our nation’s democracy, and harkens back to an earlier era in American politics.

For over 50 years, Watergate has been a central feature in the historical backdrop of contemporary politics. It has represented, at least for the subset of the American body politic with which I most engage, the moment where the American experiment faced its biggest test. Against heavy odds, the Constitution prevailed. The President of the United States committed a crime, he was held accountable by his own party, and was forced to resign. This was a moment when the system could have failed. Nixon fought hard to stay in power and to discredit the newspapers reporting on his misdeeds. To fire the prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-ins and to obstruct all forms of accountability. But he failed.

Now, the Constitution faces a similar test. There are many similarities between the current political climate and that of the 1970s: a brash, mean-spirited president who rails against the media and his political opponents, a ubiquitous decline in trust in government institutions, and the increasing prevalence of politically motivated violence.

Yet, there are important differences. Political polarization, which was on the rise in the 1970s, has reached nearly unthinkable levels now, making the mere idea of any kind of congressional discipline for presidential malpractice almost unthinkable. President Nixon frequently fantasized about avenging the perceived slights committed by the Democratic National Committee, The New York Times, Daniel Ellsberg, The Washington Post, or whoever else got in his way. However, whenever he tried to execute his vengeful musings, he was thwarted by the Constitution’s protective measures.

The Supreme Court allowed The New York Times and The Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers. The charges against Daniel Ellsberg were dismissed due to extreme government misconduct. Nixon's Democratic enemies were not prosecuted on bogus charges. When Nixon tried to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, the leadership of the Justice Department resigned in protest. Trump has encountered far less resistance.

Trump’s abuses of power in his second term are numerous, and each one deserves scrutiny. However, the indictment of James Comey stands out as Trump’s most severe to date.

The case against Mr. Comey is an unabashedly political prosecution, with little to no pretense of being anything else. The indictment was filed over the objections of multiple Virginia career prosecutors, who argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges. These objections were overruled by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist and his former personal attorney. She was appointed mere days beforehand,  directly following the ousting of Erik S. Siebert, the previous U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, after he failed to bring charges against Trump’s enemies, including Mr. Comey.

This alone is cause for concern. But it gets much worse. The indictment was truly bizarre. Trump publicly posted on social media an order to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, pressuring her to prosecute Mr. Comey and other personal opponents, including Letitia James (who has also been indicted on dubious charges), and Senator “Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff.”

Beyond this, the indictment, at two pages, is unusually short. Ms. Halligan added a third charge against Mr. Comey, which was rejected by the grand jury. This is extremely rare, as it is notoriously easy to get a grand jury to indict. The charges brought against Mr. Comey, one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding, are rarely brought in isolation. Rather, they are almost always paired with more serious charges. The charges were also filed mere days before the statute of limitations was set to expire. Finally, no career prosecutors signed the indictment, destroying much of its credibility.

Taken together, the elements and context of this indictment paint a vivid picture of a vindictive prosecution, brought by a vindictive executive, who has greater regard for his own personal vengeance than for the law. What makes this all the more dangerous is that, as President Trump continues to push the boundaries of the Constitution, Congress remains unwilling to oppose him in any significant way. Congressional Republicans act less as independent checks on the executive and more as servants to the whims of President Trump, fearing that any form of even mild dissent could trigger a career-ending backlash. Similarly, congressional Democrats, at least until this most recent government shutdown, have been broadly unwilling to exercise what minimal leverage they have.

I am not an alarmist. I do not believe that Trump necessarily signals the end of American democracy, nor do I believe we are necessarily watching the decline and fall of the American empire. However, tempered beliefs are no excuse for idleness. The stark reality is that persecution of political opponents is an essential element, perhaps the essential element, of the authoritarian playbook.

Ignoring the indictment of James Comey is understandable. Health care, immigration, the government shutdown, and the economy all feel more immediate and important, especially to those with only a casual interest in politics. After all, even though Comey was indicted, his conviction seems unlikely. Why shouldn’t the American people focus on the policies that directly affect their everyday lives? But it is precisely this attitude of indifference that allows Trump to weaponize the levers of government and punish his political foes.

James Comey was not the first, nor will he be the last. Jack Smith, John Bolton, and Letitia James have all felt the wrath of the Trump administration. If there isn’t a backlash, if the American people do not speak up, if Congress stands idly by as Trump uses the legal system to pursue his personal revenge, then these names will be the prelude to a long list of dissenters, liberal and conservative, who are silenced.

This is our Watergate moment. Will we pass the test a second time, or will we continue our descent into authoritarianism?

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the authors’ own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions.