🔗 Share this article

During 1931, an exceptionally gifted young attorney named Hans Litten summoned Adolf Hitler to testify in a criminal case. Litten acted for four victims of violent attack carried out by members of Hitler's SA paramilitary group at an entertainment venue frequented by leftist workers. When the violence concluded, multiple individuals lost their lives.

During his three-hour questioning of the Nazi party leader, Litten accomplished something unprecedented. The dictator anticipated intimidation, but instead ended up aggressively questioned under oath, transformed into a stammering rage. Through exposing Hitler in contradictions while demonstrating his habitual dishonesty, Litten simultaneously revealed the Nazi goal of dismantling German democracy.

The dictator's retaliation came after a brief period, shortly after his ascent to power. In the wake of the Reichstag fire and using an emergency decree for "protection", Hitler commanded the arrest and "so-called safeguarding of perceived opponents, among them the lawyer. For the next period, as he moved between concentration camps, Litten faced repeated beatings and mistreatment. In 1938, seeing no possibility of release, he took his own life. His offense: protecting legal principles and democratic governance from a potential authoritarian.

Modern Parallels

The United States in 2025 is not the Weimar Republic in 1933. Nevertheless, Litten's experience carries a disturbingly familiar ring. Last week, the US attorney's office in Virginia revealed that former FBI director James Comey had been indicted for allegedly lying while sworn to a congressional committee.

The case targeting the former director appear so flimsy that Erik Siebert, the president's selected federal prosecutor, declined pursuing indictment. His fair assessment predictably earned the president's anger. "Remove him," the president declared, and so Siebert resigned prior to being fired, vacating his position after barely eight months.

The president hastily named a successor: Lindsey Halligan, a member of Trump's inner circle now occupying influential roles inside the Department of Justice. Despite having no prior prosecutorial experience and overseeing complex national security cases, Halligan's main credential seemed willingness to do what Siebert would not: satisfy presidential retaliation. Her indictment against Comey, issued shortly prior to the statute of limitations expired, reinforced Siebert's doubts.

Legal Process

Law students often learn the expression that a determined lawyer can get a reviewing panel "to indict a ham sandwich." However, the new prosecutor seemingly failed to: the grand jury refused to indict on one of three counts submitted.

Trump celebrated the two-count indictment through announcing on Truth Social: "JUSTICE IN AMERICA!" – perhaps a fitting, though accidentally Orwellian, description of present condition of the rule of law in our nation. This situation involves score-settling, but it's also much more alarming implications.

Granting momentarily that the president faced biased investigation previously, it would still be unacceptable for the nation's leader to answer one injustice with another.

The reality is that the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the presidential race – the origin of the president's crusade targeting the former director – represented no politically motivated "witch-hunt". Instead, it uncovered a "sweeping and systematic" campaign to disrupt the electoral process.

True Transgression

Comey's actual "offense parallels Hans Litten's. He ventured to demonstrate loyalty to his position and legal principles, rather than the president. Not that the director faces experiencing Litten's fate. By publicly declaring Comey "guilty as hell" and transparently interfering in the legal process, the president offered the judge reason to throw out charges as vindictive prosecution.

Should Comey face court proceedings, the case's obvious weaknesses could easily lead to dismissal. Even if Comey were convicted and sent to prison, the United States presently operates no network of political detention centers where political opponents face systematic torture.

But that provides cold comfort. Reality persists that Comey is being persecuted, rather than properly charged, for prioritizing service to the nation above personal loyalty. Seemingly enacting a dictator's handbook, Trump is making Comey pay upholding legal duty. What ought to concern all Americans is the facility with which Trump, aided by his craven legal lackeys, has transformed the proudly independent justice department into an instrument of consolidating power.