🔗 Share this article

During 1931, an exceptionally gifted young attorney called Hans Litten called Adolf Hitler as a witness in a criminal case. Litten was representing four victims of violent attack carried out by followers of Hitler's SA paramilitary group on a dance hall patronized by political activists. When the assault ended, three people had been killed.

Throughout his three-hour questioning of Hitler, Litten accomplished something unprecedented. The dictator anticipated intimidation, however ended up skillfully interrogated while sworn in, reduced to an angry, stumbling speaker. Through exposing Hitler in contradictions while demonstrating his pattern of lying, Litten simultaneously revealed the party's objective of destroying the Weimar Republic.

Hitler's revenge came two years later, shortly after his ascent to authority. In the wake of the parliament burning while employing special powers allegedly for security, Hitler commanded the arrest and "protective custody" of numerous political enemies, including Litten. For the next period, as he moved between concentration camps, Litten endured constant beatings and torture. Eventually, seeing no possibility of release, he ended his life. His offense: protecting the rule of law and democratic governance from an aspiring dictator.

Modern Parallels

America in the present differs from the Weimar Republic in 1933. Still, the lawyer's ordeal has a disturbingly familiar ring. Last week, the US attorney's office in Virginia revealed that the ex-FBI chief James Comey had been indicted for allegedly lying under oath to a congressional committee.

The charges against Comey are so weak that the district's chief prosecutor, Trump's appointed legal official, declined filing charges. Siebert's professional evaluation naturally provoked the president's anger. "Remove him," Trump fumed, leading to Siebert resigned prior to being fired, vacating his position after barely eight months.

The president hastily appointed a successor: a personal lawyer, part of the president's legal team currently holding influential roles inside the justice system. Regardless of no prior prosecutorial experience and managing sensitive financial crimes, her primary qualification seemed willingness to do what Siebert would not: indulge presidential retaliation. Her indictment against Comey, issued shortly prior to the legal deadline, reinforced the previous prosecutor's concerns.

Legal Process

Law students often learn the saying that any prosecutor may secure a grand jury "to charge any target." But Halligan seemingly could not: the grand jury refused to indict on a single of three counts presented.

Trump celebrated the remaining charges by proclaiming on Truth Social: "JUSTICE IN AMERICA!" – which might be a fitting, if unintentionally Orwellian, description of present condition of legal integrity across the country. This situation involves score-settling, yet represents far more disturbing implications.

Granting momentarily that the president faced biased investigation during his first term, it would still be unacceptable for the nation's leader to respond to one injustice with another.

The reality is that the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the presidential race – the source of the president's crusade against Comey – was not politically motivated "witch-hunt". Rather, it uncovered an extensive, organized effort to interfere with democratic elections.

True Transgression

Comey's actual "offense mirrors the German lawyer's. He ventured to demonstrate fidelity to his position and legal principles, instead of the president. This doesn't mean the director faces sharing Litten's fate. By publicly declaring Comey "guilty as hell" and transparently interfering in judicial proceedings, Trump has provided the judge grounds to dismiss the case as vindictive prosecution.

If the former director go to trial, the case's obvious weaknesses might well result in dismissal. And should a guilty verdict occurred and incarcerated, the United States currently operates no network of political detention centers where government critics face systematic torture.

But that provides little consolation. The fact remains that Comey is being persecuted, not prosecuted, for prioritizing service to the nation over obedience to a man. Seemingly enacting an authoritarian playbook, the president ensures consequences for upholding legal duty. What ought to concern all Americans is the ease with which Trump, assisted by his craven legal lackeys, has transformed the traditionally autonomous legal system into an instrument of authoritarian consolidation.