By David Schindel
I’m not a big football fan, but some games are must-see, especially Michigan against Ohio State (GO BLUE!) and the Super Bowl. The most interesting things for me (in addition to Super Bowl ads) are the halftime adjustments that coaches make in their locker rooms. The first half had been spent probing for weaknesses in the other team.
Had key players with injuries come back to full speed and strength? What about players who underperformed in recent games? What potential mismatches in height, speed, strength, and talent had been engineered? Had the refs been strict or lenient, and how much can we bend the rules without being penalized in the second half?
Having probed for and identified weaknesses, each team will take as much advantage of them as they can get away with.
Donald Trump has spent 2025 probing for weaknesses. When he commits a foul against the Constitution, laws, American tradition, integrity, and good taste, what penalty will he pay in the media, public opinion polls, the stock market, Congress, and the courts?
To what degree can he avoid these penalties by backtracking or having his enablers explain them away? “That’s just Trump being Trump.” (What does that mean, anyway?) “Take him seriously, not literally.” (That sounds more like a distinction than a difference.) “He’s just kidding, can’t you take a joke?” (Does he think being President is a laughing matter?)
Setting aside these tactics, what does the list of targets for his probing tell us? Why is he removing as many immigrants as he can, using the most barbaric and unconstitutional methods? Why does he extort protection money and other concessions from universities and law firms?
Why drag up the Big Lie six years later by having the FBI seize ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia? Was it just to set the stage for arresting journalists who were covering the backlash? Taken together, what sense do they make, other than sowing confusion and fear?
I’ve been watching reruns of “Perry Mason” when I need to unwind and take my mind off this madness. I find it soothing to see him connect clues others have missed or can’t see, leading to the murderer. (Data and rational thinking are my happy places.) What sense would he find in the odd assortment of Trump’s targets?
I think the answer has been hiding in plain sight since the 2016 campaign. The President has been leaving clues for us, whether on purpose or through misjudgment. He’s done everything short of showing them on a Jumbotron during the Super Bowl halftime.
Consider the following not-so-subtle clues. Press events in the Oval Office with “Trump 2028” hats in plain view. Throwaway remarks like “I might run for a third term” or “We may not need elections anymore.” Suggestions that American cities be used as training grounds for the U.S. military to prepare for insurrections. Repeated claims of extraordinary powers justified by emergencies.
Flirtations with invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops against domestic unrest. And pressure on Texas and other states to redraw congressional maps to protect the Republican House majority, pushing the Constitution’s once-a-decade redistricting rule to the breaking point.
Connecting these and other clues suggests an intention to undermine the upcoming mid-term elections. He’s now probing for weaknesses by intimidating U.S. cities with law enforcement agents and National Guard forces. If he succeeds, the next step could be canceling an election, citing widespread voting by “illegal” immigrants, national emergencies, or insurrection.
Consider the following thought experiment. What if one team in the Super Bowl decided they had to win at all costs? They bribe the referees and pay millions to key players on the other team to throw the game. Once the facts came out, how many fans would continue to come to games or pay for access to games on TV? Could teams and the NFL survive without these revenue streams if there were no guarantees of fair competition?
As I was preparing this essay, Trump said as much during a call-in interview on a podcast, in which our President called for the Republican Party to take over control of holding elections in 15 States – a responsibility that is clearly assigned to states in the Constitution.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 – the Elections Clause – states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” though Congress may at any time make or alter those regulations.
The authors of a New York Times article unpacking Trump’s remarks did a Perry Mason-quality job of connecting the clues listed above and others. The primary clue is his debunked claim that undocumented immigrants had voted for Biden, giving him the Presidency in 2020.
The possible involvement of party officials in running elections reminds me of the November 2020 “Brooks Brothers Riot” in Florida. Republican lawyers and staffers physically intimidated officials who were conducting a recount of Miami-Dade County’s election results.
We will learn over the coming days if Republican officials fall in line to support the notion of nationalizing federal elections and turning over control to a political party, a blatantly unconstitutional act? Will they conclude that this would be crossing a line that they’re unwilling to cross?
Perhaps more important will be the reaction among supporters of the MAGA movement. Will they conclude that President Trump has gone too far in proposing a clearly unconstitutional act that would weaken elections and undermine public faith in them? Polls on this question are likely already underway, and the results will be available very soon.
I see this unfortunate development as a welcome opportunity. Can MAGA supporters, moderates, and liberals agree that any potential tampering with elections by any political party is unacceptable?
I hope that the thought of weakening elections would shock us all, regardless of our political preferences, and that this shock will restore our desire for civil discussions – discussions about our areas of agreement, disagreement, and our respective willingness to seek compromise solutions. The Cambridge Spy provides us with a platform for starting those discussions.