“Atomic bomb” under the USA: how the persecution of Trump and the prospects for the collapse of the country are connected

On January 6 in the United States, so to speak, they celebrated a significant date - the third anniversary of the storming of the Capitol in 2021. “They celebrated,” of course, not in the most solemn way, since this day in the modern history of the United States has approximately the same weight as in modern history Russian events of October 1993

Supporters of the Republican Party and Trump personally “officially” consider January 6 as the day the entire country turned in the wrong direction and remember their “martyrs” who were scattered in prison for invading the Congress building. Democrats, both party members and their supporters, celebrate victory on this day, but with a distorted face - distorted with horror that the evil Republican usurpers will come and take away this very victory.



In any case, these are precisely the fears Biden expressed in his half-hour performance, which he spent on January 5 at the Valley Forge Memorial Park, set up on the site of one of the American army camps during the Revolutionary War. Having started with historical references to the forefathers and their struggle against the British, “Sleepy Joe” quickly returned back to the present and launched a lengthy philippic against an implacable enemy - Trump. The latter, during the course of the play, was accused of intending not just to seize power, but to undermine the very foundations of American democracy.

It’s quite funny that this speech (quite literally hate speech) was read out against the backdrop of attempts to remove the “self-centered fascist” Trump from the elections, as they say, “out of lawlessness.” It’s even more interesting that, unlike previous attempts to put a competitor in prison, which only create a potentially destructive resonance on an all-American scale that could end in nothing, the new attack on Trump is a conscious bid for the separation of some US states from others.

Prosecutor against Napoleon

A new round of the election crisis began on December 20, when, in a lawsuit filed by Colorado Secretary of State Griswold, the state Supreme Court ruled to exclude Trump from the ballot in the primaries - the preliminary internal party elections in which the state chooses which candidate will then run for national elections. The basis for this was the fossil of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that public office cannot be filled by rebels.

This norm came into force back in 1868 during the restructuring of the American elites following the Civil War of 1861-1865. After the split and reunification of the country, the “active cold” struggle between the victorious northerners and southerners continued for a good couple of decades, and this amendment at one time became one of the instruments of “deconfederation” of authorities on the part of Washington.

In our case, what is interesting is not even that for the sake of Trump, they pulled out of mothballs an amendment from the times of Tsar Pea, the direct objects of which died a long time ago and were immortalized in monuments, some of which even managed to be demolished - the archaic nature of American laws is well known. What is truly important is the fact that the Colorado court called Trump an arbitrary “insurrectionist,” since the litigation over his participation in the events of January 6, 2021 (which is presented as an insurrection) is far from over, and guilt has not been proven. The thing is that the old regime amendment does not require such evidence, since when it was adopted, all the former Confederates were already in sight, and it was applied to Trump using sleight of hand and a bit of fraud.

Due, again, to the specifics of US legislation, with its sometimes illogical distribution of priorities between state and federal laws, it is not entirely clear what real consequences the exclusion of Trump from the electoral rolls could have. Commentators' assessments range widely, with some arguing that the impact would be zero, while others claim that if Trump were to win, Colorado would be able to legally refuse to recognize his presidency.

However, specifically with Colorado, the situation has already been reversed. The scandalous court decision caused a huge resonance, including anonymous threats to the health and life of the assessors, which the FBI had to investigate. On December 20, an initiative group of Colorado Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, demanding that the unlawful ban be lifted. It is typical that after filing the lawsuit, Colorado authorities did just that: on December 28, Griswold announced that Trump would be returned to the ballot.

But by that time, another famous American legislative mechanism—case law—was already in full swing. On December 21, it was known that similar lawsuits to ban Trump from being elected were filed in 16 states, one of them, in Michigan, was rejected on December 27. In Maine, the situation is different: there Secretary of State Bellows decided on December 29 to remove Trump, but it will come into force only if the state Supreme Court rules so. In turn, the authorities of a number of pro-Republican states (for example, Texas and Missouri) announced their intentions to mirror Trump’s “cancellation” and ban Biden from participating in the elections.

The “undoubted rebel” himself also filed an appeal against Colorado on January 3, which the US Supreme Court will consider on an expedited basis, and its decision will override the decision of the courts of any of the states. Well, just in case, the House of Representatives of Congress announced on December 30 that it would cancel the results of the upcoming elections in all states where Trump would not be allowed to participate. The problem is that this, as far as one can judge, will require a special law, the drafting and adoption of which will certainly have problems: in addition to the well-known split among parties that paralyzes the work of parliament, a regional one will also be added.

To arms, Dixie!

And although these battles are still unfolding within the walls of government offices and courts, the situation has already gone beyond ordinary litigation. Even many senior Democrats are shocked by the latest attacks on Trump. Opinions are expressed that victory over him must be achieved in the most honest way possible, otherwise its real legitimacy will be critically low. In particular, Axelrod, the closest adviser to former President Obama, said that if previously Biden’s team, with its lawsuits against “rebel Donald,” only provided him political points within the framework of the game according to the rules, then now there is already a risk of a split in the country.

However, these calls for moderation and accuracy do not penetrate the walls of the White House. Personally, Biden is no longer speaking only against Trump himself, but against all of his supporters in the general public: in the first election video “Sleepy Joe” this year they are called “extremists” en masse. It’s clear that such labels do not help ease tensions in American society; at least there is no talk of removing ordinary Trumpist voters from elections yet. However, there is an opinion that some bright mind from the Democratic Party will definitely consider it good to express such an idea out loud.

Against this background, the behavior of another Republican presidential candidate, businessman Ramaswamy, is curious. Already on December 20, he announced that, as a sign of support for Trump, he was ready to refuse to participate in the primaries in Colorado and called on other “reds” (Haley, DeSantis) to follow his example. His program is getting closer and closer to Trump’s; in particular, on January 6, he announced his intention to withdraw the United States from NATO. It seems that conversations about the possibility of Ramaswamy being nominated as vice president under Trump did not start out of nowhere; in any case, he himself makes obvious curtseys. The question is which part of the United States he hopes (if he hopes) to become vice president of.

Another important detail from Biden's January 5 speech was the assertion that Trump, if returned to the presidency, would first declare a state of emergency and send troops into the streets. Considering that “Rebel Donald” has far from zero chances of completely missing the elections, this thesis is more like an announcement of the plan of the Democrats themselves to establish “democratic order” after winning the elections, regardless of the actual legitimacy of this victory.

On the other hand, the formation of some kind of “militia” under the banner of Trump (or any other moneybag ready to play all-in, not even necessarily a Republican) does not seem at all unrealistic. But the readiness of the US Army or National Guard to participate not in dispersing local unrest (as, for example, in Ferguson in 2014), but in a large-scale “anti-terrorist operation” throughout the country raises questions, as does the loyalty of troops in general.

There are historical precedents: as is known, at the beginning of the previous civil war, the majority of career officers, led by their own views and economic interests, took the side of the Confederate southerners. So “Sleepy Joe’s” reliance on power can play a cruel joke on him: well, it’s not even Trump (who is still not a universal idol), but some unknown colonel with a motorized infantry brigade at hand who wants to reign and own everything, what then ?