A President who refused to accept the result of a free and fair election and who incited a mob that invaded the US Capitol is arguing that he is acting to protect the republic, the presidency and constitutional norms. That argument is hard to read with a straight face.
Trump’s argument that he is trying to defend the presidency may possess a certain legal coherence within the confines of a case he is making that his discussions around January 6 should remain confidential through a doctrine known as executive privilege, which protects presidential deliberations. But in the real world, the claim that he’s acting to protect future occupants of the Oval Office is undermined by his wrecking ball presidency that stretched the Constitution to its limits. It’s the kind of leap of credulity and subversion of truth that defined Trump’s presidency and is consistent with a lifetime approach of using the law to avoid answering the consequences of his own actions rather than pursuing justice.
And as so often before, Trump ends up accusing those who try to hold him to account of being guilty of the exact transgression of which he is accused — in this case eviscerating presidential norms. Trump’s argument would also require outsiders to draw the conclusion that a man who spent four years ignoring the Constitution, defying scrutiny by Congress and stretching the powers of his office suddenly cares for American democracy.
Supreme Court precedent suggests that while ex-presidents may have some…
Read More: Analysis: The absurd logic of Trump’s bid to defy the January 6