🔗 Share this article

During 1931, an exceptionally gifted young attorney named Hans Litten summoned Adolf Hitler as a witness in a criminal case. Litten was representing the injured parties of violent attack perpetrated by followers of Hitler's Sturmabteilung on a dance hall patronized by political activists. When the violence concluded, multiple individuals lost their lives.

During his three-hour questioning of Hitler, Litten achieved what few dared. Hitler had expected intimidation, however ended up skillfully interrogated under oath, reduced to an angry, stumbling speaker. By trapping Hitler in contradictions while demonstrating his pattern of lying, Litten also exposed the party's objective of dismantling the Weimar Republic.

The dictator's retaliation arrived two years later, shortly after his ascent to power. Following the parliament burning and using special powers allegedly for security, Hitler ordered the arrest and "protective custody" of perceived opponents, among them the lawyer. Over five years, while transferred through detention facilities, Litten endured constant physical abuse and torture. Eventually, with no hope of freedom, he took his own life. His offense: protecting the rule of law and constitutional democracy against a potential authoritarian.

Contemporary Echoes

The United States in 2025 is not Germany in that era. Nevertheless, the lawyer's ordeal carries uncomfortable similarities. Recently, federal prosecutors in Virginia revealed that the ex-FBI chief James Comey had been indicted for allegedly lying under oath before Congress.

The charges against Comey appear so flimsy that Erik Siebert, the president's selected legal official, resisted filing charges. Siebert's professional evaluation naturally provoked Trump's fury. "I want him out," Trump fumed, and so Siebert resigned prior to being fired, leaving the role after barely eight months.

The president hastily appointed a successor: a personal lawyer, a member of the president's legal team currently holding key positions inside the Department of Justice. Despite having never prosecuting cases and managing sensitive financial crimes, her main credential seemed willingness to do what Siebert would not: indulge presidential retaliation. Her indictment targeting the former director, delivered just before the legal deadline, only confirmed Siebert's doubts.

Judicial Proceedings

Law students typically study the saying that any prosecutor may secure a reviewing panel "to charge a ham sandwich." However, the new prosecutor seemingly could not: the grand jury refused to indict on one of multiple allegations submitted.

Trump celebrated the remaining charges by proclaiming on social media: "AMERICAN JUSTICE!" – perhaps a fitting, if unintentionally Orwellian, description of present condition of legal integrity across the country. The case involves score-settling, but it's also much more alarming consequences.

Assuming for argument's sake that Trump was unfairly targeted previously, nevertheless unacceptable for the nation's leader to answer perceived wrong with further injustice.

The reality is that federal examination into Russian interference in the presidential race – the origin of the president's crusade targeting the former director – represented no partisan persecution. Instead, it uncovered an extensive, organized effort to disrupt democratic elections.

The Real Offense

Comey's actual "crime" mirrors the German lawyer's. He dared to demonstrate loyalty to his office and legal principles, instead of the Great Leader. This doesn't mean Comey risks sharing the lawyer's tragic end. Through openly stating Comey "guilty as hell" and transparently interfering in judicial proceedings, the president offered the judge reason to throw out charges as vindictive prosecution.

If the former director face court proceedings, the case's obvious weaknesses could easily lead to dismissal. And should a guilty verdict occurred and sent to prison, America currently maintains no network of political detention centers where political opponents endure organized abuse.

But that provides cold comfort. Reality persists that the director faces targeting, rather than properly charged, for prioritizing service to the nation over obedience to a man. As if following an authoritarian playbook, the president ensures consequences for upholding legal duty. What should alarm every citizen is the ease with which the president, aided by his craven legal lackeys, has converted the proudly independent justice department into an instrument of consolidating power.