Donald Trump Is a Stochastic Terrorist
Donald Trump has long demonized judges who have ruled against him in cases that held him accountable for his illegal activities and in cases blocking his pet projects such as his deportation of undocumented immigrants. He has incited hatred against them with both his venomous tweets and his poisonous speech. Here, for example, is his post wishing everyone a Happy Memorial Day, even judges "WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER, AND RAPE AGAIN." This is just what the brave soldiers who gave their all for our nation fought for-- a poison pill wrapped in a message spreading happiness.
Trump's inflammatory rhetoric against judges and his political opponents, along with the virulent rhetoric of his popular supporters like Laura Loomer and Elon Musk, are nothing short of stochastic terrorism. Dictionary.com provides an unusually detailed definition and description of "stochastic terrorism." Here is part of their article on the subject.
Stochastic terrorism is “the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.”
The word stochastic, in everyday language, means “random.” Terrorism, here, refers to “violence motivated by ideology.”Here’s the idea behind stochastic terrorism:
A leader or organization uses rhetoric in the mass media against a group of people.
This rhetoric, while hostile or hateful, doesn’t explicitly tell someone to carry out an act of violence against that group, but a person, feeling threatened, is motivated to do so as a result.
That individual act of political violence can’t be predicted as such, but that violence will happen is much more probable thanks to the rhetoric.This rhetoric is thus called stochastic terrorism because of the way it incites random violence.
And sure enough, some of Trump's supporters are more than happy to play their role as terrorists. I encourage you to read Reuters' in-depth report about the hundreds of threats and death wishes sent to both judges who have ruled against Trump and their families. And it's not just threats. Reagan-appointed Judge John Coughenour was swatted after he ruled against Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship. And Judge Tanya Chutkan who presided over Trump's election interference case in DC, and prosecutor Jack Smith have also been swatted. Swatting incidents are serious and carry a small risk of death for their victims. Mark Herring, a 60-year old man from Tennessee, died of a heart attack during a swatting incident. And Andrew Finch was killed by a police officer after police received a false report of a murder and hostage situation at his home. Judge Coughenour set the gold standard for resistance against the intimidation tactics of Trump and his supporters.
Coughenour recalled helping Russian judges to develop an independent judiciary after the fall of the Soviet Union. Those judges looked at the U.S. justice system with reverence. That reputation has now been damaged, he said.
He reminded the audience that attacks on the rule of law and judicial independence preceded the rise to power for Nazis in 1930s Germany and Pol Pot in 1970s Cambodia. He said the United States needs a call to action: “Not in this country. Not on our watch.”
Please pay attention to this next video, especially starting at 6:44, where Katie Phang discusses the threats that judges who are the targets of Trump's ire have received.
Donald Trump Sues Judges Who Have Ruled Against Him
Trump has done more than just whip up hatred against judges have ruled against him. Maryland's Chief District Court Judge, George L. Russell III, ruled against Trump by delaying the deportation of immigrants for a few days so that they could be heard in court before they were deported. Trump was PISSED, and instead of handling his defeat the normal way by appealing Judge Russell's decision to a higher court, HE SUED ALL 15 OF MARYLAND'S FEDERAL JUDGES. You read that right. He didn't just sue the judge who ruled against him. He sued ALL * OF * THEM. The lawsuit was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen who serves in the Western District of Virginia. Judge Cullen said that allowing the lawsuit to proceed "would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law."
Trump's Justice Department Files a Corrupt Complaint Against Judge Boasberg
The Trump Administration accused over 200 Venezuelans of belonging to the vicious Tren de Aragua drug cartel and deported them under the Alien Enemies Act to El Salvador's infamous CECOT torture prison WITHOUT GIVING THEM DUE PROCESS. They were not given the opportunity to challenge their deportations in court by arguing that they were not in fact affiliated with any gangs. This is especially disturbing since at least some of them like gay makeup artist Andry José Hernández Romero were almost certainly not gang members. Five alleged Tren de Aragua members sued the Administration in Washington, DC to get an emergency temporary restraining order against their deportation long enough for them to get a due process hearing. Judge James Boasberg agreed with them and ordered the Trump Administration to stop deporting aliens without a hearing, but the Trump Administration defied his orders and claimed that he had no authority to block their deportations.
Judge Boasberg tried to hold the Administration in contempt of court for its defiance, but his effort was overruled by a three-judge court of appeals panel. The panel was divided with the two Trump-appointed judges giving different reasons for staying Judge Boasberg's contempt effort. Judge Gregory Kastas said that it wasn't clear the Administration was in contempt because Judge Boasberg's initial ruling was ambiguous. Judge Neomi Rao said that Judge Boasberg had no authority in this case because the alleged Tren de Aragua members had filed for a restraining order in the wrong jurisdiction. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented and would not have blocked Judge Boasberg's effort to hold the Administration in contempt.
Donald Trump and his supporters have pointed to the Appellate Court panel's ruling and called for Boasberg's impeachment. This is an extreme punishment for a judge who at worst was overturned for making the wrong call in a complicated area of law. And Judge Boasberg had every reason to try to hold the Administration accountable for their cruel defiance. And I do mean that the Trump regime's deportation policy without due process was cruel. Appellate Judge Patricia Millet called it correctly when she said,
Y'all could've picked me up on Saturday and thrown me on a plane thinking I'm a member of Tren de Aragua and given me no chance to protest it. ....Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act than has happened here.
But the Trump Justice Department was not content with leaving it to Congress to try to impeach Judge Boasberg for his decisions. Instead, the Justice Department attacked him by filing a judicial complaint against him for his remarks at a private conference for a small number of experienced judges, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Boasberg reportedly expressed concerns at the conference that the Trump Administration might not obey judicial orders and that we might be headed for a constitutional crisis. It turns out that his remarks were prescient given that he made them four days before the Venezuelans brought their plea for a temporary restraining order before him. The Justice Department's complaint called Judge Boasberg's remarks "improper" and said they "undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." There is a backstory to the complaint which I encourage you to read in Matt Naham's piece in Law&Crime and in Andrew Warren's article, "Pam Bondi’s cynical, misleading attack on Judge Boasberg."
Naham writes:
Various legal commentators reacted by calling Bondi "corrupt" and the complaint "ridiculous and frivolous," "full of Trump administration lies," thuggish and "shameful," and "simply not credible."
NYU law professor emeritus Stephen Gillers, a leading legal and judicial ethics expert, told Law&Crime that, assuming the DOJ's complaint accurately quoted Boasberg, it "should be dismissed."...
Others have wondered why, if Boasberg's non-public remarks behind closed doors to other judges were so offensive, it took months for the DOJ to file a formal complaint.
Still others have noted that Roberts himself rebuked Trump for calling for Boasberg's impeachment just days after the judge issued the TRO in March. [Referring to Boasberg's Temporary Restraining Order blocking deportation flights to El Salvador]
And Warren, who previously served as a prosecutor for the Justice Department writes:
No matter where this complaint goes from here, it is likely to have a chilling effect on judicial independence. Judges routinely discuss their constitutional approach or emerging legal trends in public, including during Senate confirmation hearings. This complaint puts a target on the backs of judges who speak out against executive overreach or comment on other broad legal issues that could be perceived as contrary to administration policy. It will threaten judicial independence, undermine judicial legitimacy, and ultimately show that, for this administration, legal authority depends on political loyalty rather than adherence to the rule of law.
In summary, Trump, his Justice Department, and his supporters have launched a three-pronged attack against judges to make them think thirty times before ruling against him. Trump wants judges to fear that:
- He will incite hatred that culminates in death threats against them and their families.
- He might sue them if they rule against him.
- His Justice Department might file a bogus judicial complaint against them if they try to hold Administration officials in contempt for defying their orders.
