What will SCOTUS do about Trump?

We’re in for a wild ride.   [Mother Jones]( MoJo Reader, I know that you’re busy and that you’re bombarded with emails at this time of year, so I’ll get right to the point. I’m writing to personally ask for your help. Yes, that means money. I’m talking about the [year-end donations from Mother Jones readers]( that make our no-holds-barred journalism possible. Our team says we have a whopping $153,000 to bring in over these next three days to make our budget. Even with [a big surge in giving]( as the 2023 deadline draws near, we may come up short this month. That’s not good news, as we need independent, kick-ass journalism more than ever these days. As our Washington, DC, bureau chief, I know how hard it is running a newsroom at this time. Things are tight. I also know—and I know you do, too—how important fearless, non-BS reporting like ours is right now, especially with democracy threatened at home and wars raging overseas. I cannot predict what 2024 will bring, but it will be a pivotal year. This is no time for us to falter. That’s why I’m asking you to [please help if you can](. I doubt you need it, but my team asked me to offer you a reminder about what’s on the line as you decide whether to [pitch in](. The recent decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to boot Donald Trump off the Republican primary ballot has triggered political chaos. Since then, Michigan’s high court rejected a similar effort to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment, which was created to bar insurrectionists from office after the Civil War. There are more than a dozen other states yet to decide this question. Meanwhile, Trump is certain to appeal the Colorado decision to the US Supreme Court. How this is settled could determine whether a demagogue with authoritarian desires who is increasingly embracing fascistic language could regain the keys to the White House. (Did you see that Trump recently posted on social media a word cloud of terms that voters apply to him, with such prominent terms as “dictator” and “revenge”—as if this was something for him to be proud of?) In the Colorado case, it was stunning that a court has issued such a stark declaration: a US president tried to overthrow constitutional government. This decision has sparked a new challenge for the American system. It seems once again likely that the Supreme Court will play a significant role in the outcome of a presidential election. Bush v. Gore was divisive and widely seen as a partisan ruling. Now what will this SCOTUS do? Affirming this decision in Colorado—and possibly subsequent disqualifications in other states—would cause a political firestorm that Trump and his cult will exploit to the max. Violence is a distinct possibility. Reversing the Colorado ruling, however, could be regarded by many Americans as a sop to Trump from justices he appointed and justices drowning in a sea of conflicts of interest (whether or not there’s a direct conflict in this case because Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni, was a wild-eyed advocate of overturning the election). Either way, one side will shout that the system is rigged. Speculation regarding the Supreme Court’s response will run rampant until it acts. Is it conceivable the court would take a pass on this? Can it let different states end up with different outcomes—rulings in favor of Trump’s disqualifications in some states, rulings against it in others? Lawyers, pundits, and perhaps your relatives and close friends will be slicing this controversy in many ways. We’re in a sort of political multiverse and in for a wild ride. And this is no time for the [both-sidesism]( that too many in the national media still fall for. My team in DC and I will be throwing everything we can at treating these next 11 months as if democracy is at stake—because it is. If you’re able to, [please throw us just a few bucks]( to help us in this mission. We will not get lost covering the horse race or side issues, as does much of the press. Our journalism will focus on the essential issue of preserving the American democracy you and I share. Nor we will get lost in distractions and word games. We can straightforwardly report that Trump is an insurrectionist vying for a return to power so he can implement the authoritarian agenda being cooked up by his allies in the right-wing infrastructure. By the way, who else says Trump sparked an insurrection? A bipartisan majority of the US Senate did—during his second impeachment. It just wasn’t enough to meet the two-thirds vote needed for conviction. That declaration should have had a larger impact on the national discourse. But in an impeachment proceeding—like in many things—winning (or not losing) is everything. This brings to mind another development that has not registered fully within our deeply divided national conversation. In the Georgia RICO prosecution that indicted Trump and 18 others for allegedly forming a “criminal racketeering enterprise” to “unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election,” three of Trump’s legal advisers have pleaded guilty: Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis. Ponder that for a moment. Three of Trump’s attorneys have acknowledged that crimes were committed during the Trump-inspired and -led campaign to overturn the election results. This is not the liberal media making such a statement. Still, the Republican Party and tens of millions of its voters continue to accept Trump and his phony Big Lie rants. It’s hard to process such detached-from-reality absurdity. Here are the facts: Trump tried to foment a coup to retain power, and this included encouraging (and not stopping) a violent attack on the US Capitol. Yet because the GOP and right-wing media have embraced and amplified Trump’s disinformation and because the Republican base has bought the lies, this elemental narrative is not a consensus position. Thus, Trump has become a one-man stress test for American democracy. The Constitution contains provisions designed to confront such a danger. But they are far from fool-proof. Most Republican senators, in the grip of the political factionalism the founders so feared, declined to convict him on impeachment. And now the 14th Amendment is being hotly contested in a manner that will probably spark political turmoil. What all this shows is that our system is ill-equipped to confront such a profound threat. The coming months may well demonstrate whether our republic can hold. If you think we need more no-nonsense reporting and no-holds-barred analysis at this critical moment, [please help us raise the $153,000 we need]( in these next three days so that we don’t fall short when we can least afford it. It’s a fundamental truth: [Your support matters](. I wouldn’t be showing up in your inbox today if it didn’t. Simply put, we could not do what we do—we could not report on the people, groups, and forces threatening our nation—were it not for readers like you who give a damn about what’s happening and understand the need for journalism that calls it like it is. Thanks for reading this and for turning to Mother Jones to help you make sense of what’s going on. It’s an honor to have your support and to be on the frontlines for you and other Americans in this battle for our future. Sincerely, David Corn Washington, DC, Bureau Chief Mother Jones [Donate](   [Mother Jones]( [Donate]( [Donate Monthly]( [Subscribe]( This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To change the messages you receive from us, you can [edit your email preferences]( or [unsubscribe from all mailings.]( For advertising opportunities see our online [media kit.]( Were you forwarded this email? [Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today.]( [www.MotherJones.com]( PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755