How GOP leaders may have become 'fascist' Trump’s 'criminal co-conspirators'

As former President Donald Trump faces four criminal prosecutions, much of the Republican Party leadership has been rushing to his defense — including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California). Most of Trump's rivals in the 2024 GOP presidential primary have offered only tepid criticism of him, although former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) have been more vehement in their attacks.

Progressive journalist Chauncey DeVega offers a scathing analysis of the state of the 2023 GOP in an article published by Salon on September 1. The Trumpified GOP, he warns, isn't shy about using the violent methods of organized crime.

"Today's Republican Party is a de facto criminal organization," DeVega warns. "The crime boss is Donald Trump. Like in other criminal organizations, Trump rules through an inner circle of his closest advisors and lieutenants. Trump the boss also uses threats of violence and intimidation to keep control and to punish his enemies. Unlike other criminal organizations, the Republican Party administers its loyalty oath in public."

DeVega makes his point by noting that during the first 2024 GOP primary debate, six of the eight candidates on a stage in Milwaukee agreed to support Trump if he becomes the nominee.

"Donald Trump's crimes against democracy and the American people were committed in public," DeVega observes. "Moreover, Trump is unapologetic in his criminality and proud of his evil behavior — and promises to get revenge on he and his fascist MAGA movement's 'enemies' when/if he takes back the White House in 2025. Like other professional criminals, Donald Trump has also shown himself to be a sociopath if not a full-on psychopath."

DeVega continues, "When the Republican candidates pledged loyalty to Trump last week during the debate — and on other occasions as well —they were also endorsing and supporting his crimes and promising to continue with them. As a practical matter, they are now his criminal co-conspirators."

'Mark Meadows has a potential perjury problem': former special counsel

“Mark Meadows has a potential perjury problem,” writes professor of law Ryan Goodman, a former U.S. Dept. of Defense Special Counsel. Goodman is referring to court documents filed Thursday by Willis arguing against allowing Meadows to move his case to federal court and severing it from his co-defendants.

Professor of law and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance says, “Willis makes a compelling argument against permitting Meadows to remove his case to fed’l court simply because one or more overt acts involved his official position, pointing out he’s charged with a conspiracy to violate the RICO act & he must have a fed’l defense to that crime.”

Willis opens by writing: “The defendant’s prosecution was not commenced against him ‘for or related to any act’ under color of his office. The defendant’s prosecution commenced because he knowingly and willfully entered into an agreement to violate the Georgia RICO Act.”

University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky said in a social media post that Meadows, who testified earlier this week in a hearing to have his Georgia election conspiracy case moved from Fulton County to federal court, failed to address a key requirement.

Meadows was required to make a colorable federal defense, indicating his actions were within the scope of his role as the former president’s chief of staff.

But Kovarsky writes that Meadows made no such arguments in support of that claim and that “his is a catastrophic blunder - think land war in Asia…”

“I'm not sure what the Meadows legal team, highly regarded in the media, was thinking here.”

Kovarsky argues that in racketeering cases, Meadows is legally responsible for the actions of all engaged in a conspiracy.

“All conspirators bear criminal RICO liability for all crimes of all co-conspirators, whether they committed overt acts or not,” Kovarsky writes. “Meadows does have some nice-sounding case law on this question, although none of it (as far as I can tell) addresses the unique setting of a conspiracy charge.”

Kovarsky argues that a “defense is not ‘colorable’ unless it is capable of defeating the count.”

“And on this argument, it's not just that Willis ‘gets the better of it.’ Meadows lawyers didn't even get to it. He's in big trouble.”