Donald Trump just made history as the only former President to be indicted. Given his long history of avoiding consequences for his misdeeds, this probably came as a shock to him. While it is hoped that Trump’s lawyers will provide the competent legal defense that all accused citizens are supposed to receive, he and his defenders have been focused on mobilizing and grifting his base. Trump has hit upon two clever rhetorical approaches with a common root.

The first is a reboot of his “in reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.” The second is the assertion that if “they” can come for Trump, then they can come from anyone. At the root, the two are connect by the idea that Trump and his base are common target of “them.” These seem to work well on his base but are also worth assessing.

While Trump claims that “they” are not after him but after his base, he also claims that “they” are after him—that there is a “witch hunt” by Democrats obsessed with getting him. While this is inconsistent with the claim that “they” are not really after him, the inconsistency is irrelevant to its rhetorical strength. After all, a Trump supporter is unlikely to note this inconsistency and conclude that at least one of these claims must be false. And since truth matters little (if at all), inconsistency would also not matter in terms of the persuasive force of these assertions for Trump’s base. But are “they” really after Trump’s base and is he really in the way?

It is certainly true that there are people after some members of Trump’s base. For example, law enforcement did go after some of those who participated in the events of January six. As another example, law enforcement has also gone after people affiliated with Trump, such as Michael Cohen, and some of them have ended up in jail. But these are clearly cases of legal action being taken against people who broke the law. So, in reality, there are people after Trump and some members of his base. But this is because of their (alleged) crimes. Now, is it true that Trump is “just in the way”?

This is a nice bit of rhetoric as it both presents Trump as an innocent victim (he just happens to be in the way) but also as the defender of his base (he is what that stands between his base and “them”). But his claim is obviously not true.

First, the legal system does not work like a game of Risk—they do not need to go through Trump to go after his base (if they wished to do so) or fellows. This was clearly shown in the case of those sentenced for what they did on January 6 and those already sentenced for doing crimes (allegedly) at the behest of and for Trump. Trump was not in the way. In fact, he stayed out of the way, which takes us to the second point.

Second, Trump has not been “in the way” in the sense of acting to defend or protect his base. While he did pardon people like Steve Bannon, he did not pardon any of the January 6 rioters. He has, however, claimed that he will consider such pardons if he is re-elected.  But he had every opportunity to “get in the way” when he was still President and decided to step out of the way. While some supporters say that Trump’s failure to aid them resulted in disillusionment, his failure to “get in the way” seems to have had no meaningful impact on his base. That is, they accept his rhetoric even though he abandoned those who went to the capital at his (alleged) behest. Now, to the claim that if they can come for Trump, they can come for anyone.

While not an expert on law, I was slightly surprised that Trump was indicted because of what I know about how the legal system is run. The wealthy and connected are often able to avoid consequences for their misdeeds. While in most cases this is because they have managed to ensure that their misdeeds are allowed by the law, they are also able to avoid or mitigate laws that do apply to their actions. I suspect that while Trump has been indicted, he will avoid meaningful accountability once again. Trump and his supporters presumably also grasp how the legal system works, so it is reasonable for them to make that claim: if someone as wealthy and connected as Trump could be indicted and perhaps even face some consequences, then the same could happen to anyone who lacks his special protection from the law and consequences. It is like being in a rowboat and seeing a cruise ship in the tentacles of a giant squid—if it can grab the cruise ship, it can surely crush you in your rowboat. From a rhetorical standpoint, this assertion is supposed to be scary—people are supposed to think that they are also in danger, presumably even if they are as innocent as Trump claims to be.

This rhetoric does have some truth in that there are people who should be worried that they will be unfairly treated by the police and the legal system. That is, they should be afraid that the legal system will harm them, though they have done nothing wrong. These people are, as would be expected, not wealthy and connected people like Donald Trump, but people of lesser means and minorities. But, as an expression of shock and disbelief, Trump’s remark is dead on: it is surprising to see someone like Trump face the possibility of accountability and if they can come for him, perhaps they could come for anyone. But, as David A. Graham argued, this could be seen as a good thing.

In the United States, people like to say that no one is above the law. If this were true, it would imply that if they can come for Trump, then they can come for everyone. This is because they can come for anyone. While this does sound a bit menacing, it also is a statement of fairness: no one has a special status that puts them beyond the law.

While some are lauding the fact that Trump’s indictment serves as an example supporting the claim that no one is above the law, it does nothing of the sort. There is, of course, the obvious fact that Trump has merely been indicted and might face minor or no consequences for his alleged crimes. He best provides an example of the extent to which a wealthy and connected person can remain beyond the law for decades, facing little in the way of meaningful consequences. Even if he is convicted, he will still just provide an example of one wealthy and connected person who eventually did so many (alleged) crimes and did them so badly and openly that he was eventually convicted of something. Hardly an inspiring tale of how no one is above the law. “No one is above the law forever if they do enough crimes openly and badly” is accurate but awful.

Originally appeared on A Philosopher’s Blog Read More