Dear America,
On August 1st, 2023, Donald Trump faced charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of an official proceeding. This unprecedented indictment marked the third time this year that the former president had been indicted on criminal charges.
Contemplating whether to address this recent indictment has been a matter of personal reflection for me. While our elected leaders should be diligently working to enhance our nation for the betterment of the American people, it's disheartening to observe that they appear more engrossed in a political spectacle. The challenge lies in how we, the citizens, are expected to place unwavering trust in our justice system when these indictments can't help but appear politically driven. Just last week, new revelations concerning the business dealings of the Biden family with Ukraine and China during Joe Biden's Vice Presidency came to light. Hunter Biden's former business partner, Devin Archer, provided testimony implicating Joe Biden. Alarmingly, the Department of Justice issued an arrest warrant for Archer the day before he was scheduled to testify against Joe Biden. The timing raises questions. The arrest warrant was linked to Archer's involvement in a $60 million bond fraud, for which he had been convicted in 2018.
It is evident, America, that my capacity to comment on this matter is deeply challenged. My faith in our system has eroded, and I can no longer perceive the actions of our justice departments as anything other than politically motivated maneuvers. America must grasp that contested election results have been a recurring theme throughout our history. Claims of election irregularities are not exclusive to the 2020 election. Historical instances such as Theodore Roosevelt versus William Howard Taft, George W. Bush versus Al Gore, and the notable case of Rutherford B. Hayes versus Samuel J. Tilden are reminders that the path to clarifying election outcomes is one threaded with debate and contention. It's understandable that even after elections, the losing party might be discontent with the results. Take, for instance, notable cases like Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams, both of whom have publicly voiced concerns about election fraud following their respective defeats.
However, I struggle to recall any prior instance in America's history that has brought us to the current scenario of election charges against Donald Trump almost three years later. It’s hard to imagine that these charges would have sufficed if Donald Trump was not running for President. Nonetheless, it appears that our nation has transitioned from addressing election disagreements through civil avenues, as is traditionally done, to categorizing them as criminal transgressions. This shift establishes an exceedingly risky and thoughtless precedent for our country, though perhaps a necessary one for our nation's evolution. In our modern context, the erosion of trust among the American populace in the ability of our elected representatives to act solely in the nation's interest, untainted by their own political and personal motivations, has become markedly pronounced. Therefore, when it comes to the election results, it becomes difficult to envision a scenario where Congress can successfully reach a resolution that genuinely advances the interests of the United States.
Let's revisit the historically charged presidential election of 1876, a period marked by substantial political turmoil, and analyze how the leaders of that era skillfully navigated toward a resolution that satisfied both factions. Congress responded by instituting a unique Electoral Commission in January 1877, aimed at shattering the impasse. This commission comprised five representatives from the House of Representatives, five from the Senate, and five from the Supreme Court. Its overarching mandate was to ascertain the validity of the disputed electoral votes, ultimately rendering a decision to determine the election's final outcome.
The proceedings of the Election Commission were marked by intense political maneuvering and legal debates. Clear partisan divisions were evident, with both Democrats and Republicans relentlessly vying for an outcome that favored their respective interests. The commission's determinations frequently ignited controversy, prompting concerns about potential biases arising from its composition.
Meanwhile, away from public scrutiny, more expansive political negotiations were unfolding. The Compromise of 1877 emerged from these discussions. According to this compromise, Hayes was declared the election's victor. In exchange for this concession, however, federal troops were slated for withdrawal from the Southern states, effectively ending the Reconstruction era. This compromise had far-reaching implications for civil rights and race relations, culminating in removing federal safeguards for African Americans in the South.
Indeed, the nation managed to forge ahead, yet the entire process laid significant flaws within the system bare. While the commission's inception sought to furnish a structured legal avenue for resolving conflicts, its proceedings were far from impervious to political influence. The subsequent compromise underscored the readiness of political figures to elevate personal agendas above the bedrock of democratic ideals, a choice that etched a lasting imprint on the fabric of American society and politics.
The Election Commission of 1876 would have faced insurmountable challenges if tasked with overseeing the 2020 election, considering the intense polarization and a notable dearth of willingness to seek common ground in a manner that genuinely prioritizes the welfare of the American people. Furthermore, envisioning the establishment of an impartial election commission becomes a daunting task, particularly in light of Congress's recent history of forming biased commissions, as exemplified by the January 6 commission.
We find ourselves in a unique and unprecedented situation that America has not previously encountered. The course of action has shifted towards bringing election challenges before the criminal courts, where final decisions will rest with a jury. It's essential to recognize that all evidence will be subject to scrutiny within the criminal justice system. Donald Trump's legal team asserts that they now have the authority to issue their own subpoenas, enabling a comprehensive reexamination of every facet of the 2020 Election within these legal proceedings. This marks a distinct opportunity for President Trump, allowing him to wield subpoena power since January 6th, which can be exerted within the framework of a Federal Court.
Irrespective of the final verdict, this process has the potential to reshape the landscape of election challenges significantly. If our elected representatives can now be held potentially accountable within criminal courts, the act of contesting election outcomes through such legal avenues might emerge as a vital and necessary step toward ensuring transparency and accountability. I firmly hold the conviction that assuming the role of an elected official carries substantial duties, chief among them being the governance of the American populace. It is imperative that our election outcomes remain equitable and openly disclosed, devoid of any compromise that might disadvantage any party, akin to the circumstances witnessed in the 1876 election.
Before I conclude this letter, I wish to address one final point that I consider crucial for clarity. It's worth noting that during the period of the disputed election in 1876, the Vice President of the United States held a pivotal role in the electoral process. The Vice President presided over the joint session of Congress, where the electoral votes were counted and ratified. This responsibility bestowed upon the Vice President the authority to validate or invalidate electoral votes, thereby substantially resolving any conflicts. However, the situation during this time was complicated by the unfortunate passing of Vice President Henry Wilson, leaving the Vice Presidency unoccupied. Notably, recent amendments were made to the Electoral Count Act, which clarified the Vice President's role in tallying states' electoral votes and implemented revisions to promote an equitable and open process. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, Vice President Mike Pence at the time did possess the authority, in line with historical precedent, to validate the election outcomes.
The motivation behind my reference to this historical episode stems from my firm belief that many of the challenges we face today can be effectively met by exploring our past. Our nation's historical narrative is a treasure trove of information that should never fade from our collective memory. It equips us with the tools to distinguish truth from falsehood and perhaps provides insights into our country's trajectory. Most crucially, it empowers us as Americans to grasp the measures required to script the upcoming chapter in our nation's chronicle.
Signed,
G.S.P.
