Mark Levison, The Levison Group
It’s hard to watch cable news these days without being drawn into a discussion about a “witch hunt.” A whole cauldron of charges seems to be constantly bubbling around the current administration while a sorcerer’s stew of Russian skullduggery, real or imagined, is being incessantly stirred. The most re-played question from the Senate Judiciary hearing testimony of Christopher Wray, the President’s nominee to head at the FBI, was Senator Graham’s inquiry whether he believed the Russian investigation is a “witch hunt,” and Wray’s response that it was not. But just what are witch hunts anyway? And have they become just another facet of political life in America?
Then-President Richard Nixon loudly protested that a witch hunt was being conducted to pillory him forty-three years ago. However, witch hunts were part of the American legal scene long before that. The genesis of it began at least as early as February 1692 when two young daughters of Minister Samuel Parris started acting out. Their actions, including contortions, delusions and uncontrollable outbursts of screaming, were diagnosed by Dr. William Griggs as “bewitchment.” I can relate.
There was a time when I was the father of three highly emotional, semi-irrational, screaming teenage girls. At the time there was no doubt in my mind that they too were possessed. Fortunately, by the time my daughters hit nineteen they had excised themselves of those evil spirits (for the most part). The Salem Village girls were not given that same chance. The “law” became involved, and Bridget Bishop, and a dozen and a half others, were put to death.
Unfortunately, after the good doctor’s bewitchment diagnosis was made public, similar symptoms spread to other rebellious, disrespectful teenage girls (i.e., every girl in the village). If Fox and CNN had been around then, they certainly would have had constant “Breaking News” and 24-hour coverage of the famed Salem Witch Trials.
In fact, an additional 150 individuals, living in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, were accused and tried in that 1692-93 period. The trials were presided over by Lt. Governor William Stoughton, who was appointed chief justice of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. Stoughton, a man of strong religious convictions, was determined to eradicate all witches from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Although most of the accused eventually had their guilty verdicts annulled, Chief Justice Stoughton never apologized for his role in the trials and apparently went to his grave convinced he had been on a holy mission. They didn’t have a Speedy Trial Act in the days of Justice Stoughton, and apparently didn’t need one. Eight days after Bridget Bishop was convicted of witchcraft the death sentence was carried out.
How could such a thing happen in “courts of law?” Well, at that time, the Puritan community of Salem Village was suffering the aftereffects of a 1689 British war with France (in the American colonies known as the French and Indian Wars), a concern over attacks from Native American tribes, and a smallpox epidemic to boot. In contrast, today we only have to worry about a run on McRibs, a resurgence of leg warmers as outerwear and Kim Jong-un’s nuclear attack on Maui, a place I recently visited and found worth saving. Further, the Puritans of that day had become very cautious about their neighbors, and were deeply skeptical of outsiders. Hmm.
Ever since the 1690s, the “witch hunt” analogy has been used in America’s most obvious cases of mass hysteria. The analogy has often been cited in respect to Senator Joe McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade and his utilization of the $64 dollar question (Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?). Today, most agree that McCarthy, and some of his fellow Congressmen on the House Un-American Activities Committee, were indeed conducting a witch hunt. But such widespread conclusions come only after history, like really fine Gouda cheese, has had time to properly age. The invocation of the “witch hunt” defense can appropriately be used as a warning against extremism, false accusation and compromises of our legal due process. It can also be used by a purported “victim” as a sword against what may turn out to be a valid inquiry.
President Trump is tirelessly tweeting about the current witch hunt: maybe a shield; maybe a sword. The President argues that similar to the hysteria of a band of teen and tween Salem girls, the Democrats, still licking their wounds from an unexpected electoral defeat, are whipping up the country – fanned by their surrogates in the press – to burn him at the stake. The firewood of the inciters is the dozen or so Trump family members, friends and campaign staffers who forgot they met with the Russians and/or after remembering the meetings, changed their stories. Although they appear to have very bad memories, there is another possibility: sorcery.
Interestingly, despite modern lore, the “witches” weren’t burned at all. They were mostly hanged. Now I am pretty sure that life in the ‘90s in Massachusetts (the 1690s) could not be described as “the best of times.” Religious zealots saw devils in the strangest places. In fact, in Joseph Glanvil’s 1668 treatise, Against Modern Sadducism, he claimed to have absolute proof of the existence of witches and ghosts. Those were superstitious and mean times, and you didn’t want anybody accusing you of being a witch. One of the accused witches was a four-year-old girl.
Fortunately, today we live in an enlightened, rational society. We know there are no such thing as witches. Well, okay, there is the Wiccan Society and it does claim to have a whole bunch of witches, but all countries have their flakes. Of course, some people think the President is a flake (or worse). Others think he is a hero battling against an entrenched establishment that will do anything to take him down. There was a time when the concept of “the Donald” cavorting with a bunch of Russians (at a beauty pageant, or otherwise) in order to become President of the United States seemed like the stuff of B-movies. I certainly found it hard to believe. Nevertheless, being an attorney, the more protestation of outrage I hear, and the harder the administration tries to cut off investigations, the more skeptical I get. (Does anybody else feel the Trump Administration’s use of Sebastian Gorka—a fellow who will remind the older among us of Boris Badenov from the Rocky and Bullwinkle show—as a spokesperson to defend against the Russian collusion charge a questionable choice?)
Of course, once we start down the Russian road we need to follow it to the end. Like Watergate and the House hearings on Un-American Activities, the current Russian investigation will be gut wrenching – not just for the Trumps, but for all of us. Collusion with Putin and his oligarch friends is not a scenario anybody could have envisioned or be proud of. Maybe it’s all just a bunch of red herrings, silliness and ineptness. Maybe it’s just another round of “politics as usual.” It’s now up to us to sort out which is witch. Fortunately, history is on our side. The American legal system, spawned from merry ole England, is grounded in the bedrock of logic, fairness, reason and laws rather than rumor and hysteria. Although timing may be an issue, we will eventually get it all sorted out. After all, I’m pretty sure we’ve come a long way from trying people for being afflicted with witchcraft. Of course, one never knows these days what will be considered a pre-existing condition.
————————
Under Analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levison Group. Mark Levison is a member of the law firm of Lashly & Baer. Contact Under Analysis by e-mail at comments@levisongroup.com.
© 2017 Under Analysis LLC
