🔗 Share this article

During 1931, an exceptionally gifted young attorney named Hans Litten summoned Adolf Hitler to testify before the court. Litten acted for four victims of violent attack carried out by followers of Hitler's Sturmabteilung on an entertainment venue patronized by leftist workers. By the time the assault ended, three people had been killed.

Throughout the extensive questioning of Hitler, Litten achieved what few dared. Hitler had expected fear, however found himself skillfully interrogated while sworn in, transformed into an angry, stumbling speaker. Through exposing Hitler through inconsistencies while demonstrating his pattern of lying, Litten also exposed the Nazi goal of dismantling the Weimar Republic.

Hitler's revenge arrived two years later, shortly after his rise to authority. Following the Reichstag fire while employing an emergency decree for "protection", Hitler commanded the arrest and "so-called safeguarding of perceived opponents, including Litten. Over five years, while transferred between concentration camps, Litten endured constant beatings and torture. Eventually, with no hope of freedom, he took his own life. His offense: defending the rule of law and constitutional democracy from a potential authoritarian.

Modern Parallels

The United States in 2025 is not Germany in that era. Nevertheless, Litten's experience has a disturbingly familiar ring. Recently, the US attorney's office for the eastern district of Virginia announced that former FBI director James Comey had been indicted for supposedly providing false statements under oath to a congressional committee.

The case against Comey are so weak that Erik Siebert, Trump's appointed legal official, resisted filing charges. His fair assessment predictably earned the president's anger. "I want him out," the president declared, and so the prosecutor stepped down prior to dismissal, leaving the role after barely eight months.

The president hastily appointed a replacement: a personal lawyer, part of Trump's inner circle now occupying key positions within the justice system. Despite having no prior prosecutorial experience and managing sensitive financial crimes, Halligan's primary qualification seemed readiness to do what Siebert would not: satisfy Trump's desire for revenge. Her indictment targeting the former director, delivered just before the legal deadline, only confirmed the previous prosecutor's concerns.

Legal Process

Law students typically study the saying that a determined lawyer can get a reviewing panel "to charge any target." But Halligan seemingly failed to: the grand jury declined charges on one of three counts submitted.

Trump celebrated the two-count indictment through announcing on social media: "JUSTICE IN AMERICA!" – which might be a fitting, if unintentionally Orwellian, characterization of present condition of legal integrity in our nation. The case involves personal vengeance, but it's also far more disturbing consequences.

Assuming momentarily that Trump was unfairly targeted previously, it would still be unacceptable for a sitting president to answer one injustice with another.

The reality is that federal examination into Russian interference in the 2016 election – the origin of Trump's campaign against Comey – represented no partisan persecution. Rather, it revealed a "sweeping and systematic" effort to disrupt the electoral process.

True Transgression

Comey's actual "offense mirrors the German lawyer's. He dared to show loyalty to his position and the law, rather than the president. Not that Comey risks experiencing Litten's fate. Through openly stating Comey "guilty as hell" and transparently interfering in the legal process, Trump has provided the judge grounds to throw out charges as retaliatory legal action.

Should Comey face court proceedings, the prosecution's clear flaws could easily lead to an acquittal. And should Comey were convicted and incarcerated, the United States presently operates no network of political detention centers where government critics endure organized abuse.

Yet this offers little consolation. The fact remains that Comey is being persecuted, rather than properly charged, for prioritizing service to the nation above personal loyalty. As if following an authoritarian playbook, the president ensures consequences for his act of constitutional fidelity. What should alarm every citizen is the ease with which the president, aided by compliant lawyers, has transformed the traditionally autonomous legal system into a tool of authoritarian consolidation.