Take Trump seriously or literally? Or both?

Salena Zito, writing for The Atlantic in September 2016, may have been the first to describe, in a triumph of pithy efficiency, why Donald Trump is able to survive and thrive despite provocative statements that would endanger the career of nearly any other politician: “When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

I thought of this expression last week when Trump, speaking at a rally in Pennsylvania, made a stunningly provocative statement that is easily unnoticed in a forest of many others. Trump said it should be illegal for citizens to criticize the Supreme Court: “These people should be put in jail the way they talk about our judges and justices, trying to get them to sway their vote, sway their decision.”

Should we take this statement seriously or literally?

A MAGA acquaintance told me not to take this statement “seriously.” He also may have meant not to take it “literally,” either. In other words, Trump doesn’t seriously or literally intend to throw citizens in jail for criticism of the court, which would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

According to this way of thinking, Trump’s threat of jail time for critics is rhetorical, similar to saying that critics of the court should be hung up by their toes or given 50 lashes with a horsewhip. After all, this threat echoes the familiar rallying cry of the 2016 campaign, “Lock her up,” and nothing came of that.

In other words, nothing to worry about.

Still, one of the things that Trump supporters say that they like about him is that he says what he means and means what he says, which, if true, should give pause to anyone who opposes him in light of his social media post last month: “Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”

In fact, on Sept. 21, the New York Times published a lengthy report by Michael Schmidt on Trump’s efforts while in office to initiate investigations and prosecutions against political rivals and others he saw as threats. Sure, it was in the Times, but this isn’t a left-wing fabrication. Schmidt’s reporting is based on documents, court filings and interviews, often with people who were appointed by and close to Trump.

For example, according to witnesses, in spring of 2018 Trump, dissatisfied with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, threatened to personally prosecute Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and former FBI Director James Comey, startling his aides and provoking his White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to produce a memo advising Trump of how outside the customary bounds of the justice department, and possibly the law, such an action would be. In fact, McGahn and other aides memorialized their warnings to protect themselves should Trump take the actions that they were strongly advising against.

As it happens, little came of Trump’s threats. But a second Trump term would be different. He’s unlikely to employ a White House counsel like McGahn or a chief of staff like John Kelly, who both worked hard to stall and restrain actions by Trump that would have violated important democratic norms or legal boundaries.

Further, Trump probably feels entitled to payback due to his evidence-free contention that he’s been the victim of “lawfare” waged by the Biden administration.

Some “lawfare.” The Department of Justice has been in Democratic hands for four years, and Trump has yet to be held accountable for attempting to overturn an election, inciting an insurrection, and retaining and hiding classified documents. For a man like Trump, convictions for his run-of-the-mill crimes of falsifying business records and sexual assault are low-hanging fruit.

Trump is known for being transactional, but he’s also transgressive. The norms, and even the laws, that prevent officials from prosecuting their perceived enemies mean little to him.

Thus, when he says that, in a second term, critics who speak out against the Supreme Court should be thrown into jail, it would be extremely naïve to fail to take him both seriously and literally.

John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, lives in Texas and can be reached at jcrispcolumns@gmail.com