You are here

Home

Trump Will Weaponize the DOJ

Submitted by Robin Messing on Thu, 10/03/2024 - 6:22pm

Donald Trump has used the Justice Department to go after his political enemies in the past, and he will do so with greater gusto and efficiency if he is elected again. Let's first look at his past abuse of the Justice Department. Then we'll look at his promise to use the Justice Department to go after his enemies. And finally we'll contrast that with Joe Biden's Justice Department which the Republicans accuse of going after Biden's political enemies.

 

Donald Trump's Past Abuse of the Justice Department

Michael Schmidt of the New York Times wrote an in-depth analysis of how members of Trump's administration tried to rein in Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department. Here are some excerpts from a very long article that I encourage you to read in its entirety.

It was the spring of 2018 and President Donald J. Trump, faced with an accelerating inquiry into his campaign’s ties to Russia, was furious that the Justice Department was reluctant to strike back at those he saw as his enemies.

 

In an Oval Office meeting, Mr. Trump told startled aides that if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not order the department to go after Hillary Clinton and James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, Mr. Trump would prosecute them himself.

Recognizing the extraordinary dangers of a president seeking not just to weaponize the criminal justice system for political ends but trying as well to assume personal control over who should be investigated and charged, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, sought to stall.

“How about I do this?” Mr. McGahn told Mr. Trump, according to an account verified by witnesses. “I’m going to write you a memo explaining to you what the law is and how it works, and I’ll give that memo to you and you can decide what you want to do.” ...

Those who would find themselves facing down the power of the federal government ranged from high-profile figures like Mrs. Clinton to F.B.I. officials like Mr. Comey to people formerly in Mr. Trump’s personal orbit like Michael D. Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, and Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former contestant on “The Apprentice” who worked in communications at the White House in 2017.

Mr. Trump’s efforts were so sustained and troubling to top West Wing aides that at least two of them took from the White House notes they had written that memorialized how he said he wanted to use the powers of the federal government against his rivals.
In a few of the cases where Mr. Trump wanted investigations, there was legitimate basis for action. But in many others, there was little or no legal justification. None resulted in a criminal conviction. ...

Still, the president’s conduct deeply troubled Andrew Goldstein, one of the lead prosecutors on the obstruction investigation headed by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Goldstein saw it as among the most concerning of Mr. Trump’s behaviors.

“Using presidential power to launch investigations of your rivals, without real evidence of potential wrongdoing, goes against everything the Department of Justice stands for,” said Mr. Goldstein, who along with other members of Mr. Mueller’s team is publishing a book about their investigation this month.
“But it is not necessarily a crime,” he said, “and after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, this kind of conduct may not be subject to criminal investigation at all.” . . .

Mr. Trump sought to use the government to go after four broad categories of perceived enemies and critics.

One was F.B.I. officials, whom he sought to portray as biased or corrupt as they investigated him. Another was political rivals, whom he sought to tar with allegations of the same kind of wrongdoing, like collusion with foreign countries, that he was under investigation for.

He also wanted government power deployed against news organizations that produced coverage he did not like, as well as against people from his personal and business life he felt had betrayed him.

The New York Times reported that Trump used or tried to use the Justice Department to go after John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton, Michael Cohen, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe, among others. But as thorough as it was, the report didn't mention Trump's pressuring Bill Barr to use the Justice Department to go after Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

 

Note that Trump wanted the Justice Department to prosecute Presidents Biden and Obama for spying on his campaign. That didn't happen.  Do you want to know what did happen? Donald Trump encouraged hackers to hack into Obama's college records to prove his racist birther conspiracy theory. Everything with Trump is a projection.

 

Donald Trump Will Use the Justice Department Even More Viciously And Efficiently If He Wins the Election

 

Donald Trump plans to weaponize the Justice Department against a MANY more people if he wins the election. He told us this in his post to Truth Social. I have highlighted the most important sentence.

The goal of this post should be obvious--Donald Trump is trying to intimidate ANYONE who helps Kamala Harris win. Note Trump's assumption underlying this tweet--that he WILL win, and the only way that Harris can win is if others help her cheat. Donald Trump has a LONG history of accusing others of cheating against him. Of course, he accused Biden of stealing the election from him in 2020. That was the whole point behind the Stop the Steal movement. But did you know that he accused Hillary of cheating in 2016, even though he won in the electoral college? He couldn't stand the fact that she had beat him by about 2.8 million votes, so he said he would have won the popular vote had Clinton not cheated. He formed a commission to find all the illegal votes, but the commission was quietly disbanded when it couldn't find any significant cheating.

But Trump doesn't accuse only Democrats of cheating. Before he accused Clinton of cheating, he accused his Republican rivals of cheating to steal the 2016 Republican nomination form him. You might think the phrase "Stop the Steal" was invented in 2020, but you would be wrong. Trump's surrogate, Roger Stone, built a website called StoptheSteal.org in March 2016 to go after Trump's Republican opponents. Stone even told Breitbart News that Ted Cruz should be put in handcuffs for voter fraud! I documented this history in great detail in Donald Trump's History of Crying "Rigged Election." It is hardly surprising that Trump is now calling those who support Harris cheaters. Accusing others of cheating him is Trump's schtick. It's what he does.

Note that Trump's post said he will go after lawyers. He obviously doesn't want a repeat of 2020 where he challenged Biden's win in over 60 courts, and it was defense lawyers who convinced the judges in all but one court to rule against Trump. (And that one decision in favor of Trump was on a minor point that did not significantly affect the election.) Trump will inevitably try to use the court system to overturn Harris's victory if she wins. His post is intended to deter good lawyers from defending Harris's victory.

And he will also go after political operatives. That means anyone advising the Harris campaign, anyone making commercials for the Harris campaign, anyone prepping the Harris campaign for debates, or anyone doing polling for the Harris campaign could face the wrath of the Trump Justice Department.

Even anyone who has DONATED to the Harris campaign could be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves from a baseless Justice Department investigation and prosecution.

As I said, Donald Trump is trying to intimidate ANYONE who supports Kamala Harris. Does this mean Trump's Justice Department will go after you if you gave $20 to her campaign? If that's all you've done, almost certainly not. The Justice Department does not have the resources to go after millions of people. But if you've been especially outspoken in your support of Harris--and especially if you have a high profile--WATCH OUT!

And Trump's Justice Department will be much more ruthless and efficient in going after Trump's enemies than it was during his first term. The New York Times article that I discussed above showed there was internal resistance to Trump's abuses by both high-level Justice Department officials and from Trump's White House Counsel. Trump plans on using something called Schedule F to strip up to 50,000 federal employees of their job protection and replace them with his sycophants. When Trump says, "jump", they will say, "How high?" When he says, "Prosecute my enemies", they will comply or face immediate unemployment. Trump will be the Borg, and resistance will be futile.

 

But What About Democrats Weaponizing The Justice Department Against Trump and His Supporters?

 

Donald Trump and his supporters are masters of false equivalencies, and their mating call is WHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTBOUTBOUT! But WHATABOUT the evil Biden DOJ that is rigging the 2024 election against Donald Trump by their endless lawfare? One big difference between Biden's Justice Department and Trump's Justice Department is that the Biden Justice Department has brought valid indictments against Trump based on mountains of evidence. You can read Jack Smith's recently filed motion in the Washington DC election obstruction case and the Florida indictment over the stolen classified documents and see for yourself just how much meat is on the bones of Jack Smith's cases.

But hasn't the Supreme Court limited the DC case, and hasn't Judge Aileen Cannon used the Supreme Court's ruling to dismiss the case in Florida? Yes, and yes. Discussing the legal machinations behind the attacks on Jack Smith's cases in detail is beyond the scope of this column. I recommend watching video below to see Judge J. Michael Luttig's critique of the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States decision. Judge Luttig is a conservative and is one of the most highly respected authorities on the Constitution. Here are his credentials as provided by the National Constitution Center.

• J. Michael Luttig served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years, from 1991 to 2006.
• Before he was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, he served as assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice and counselor to the attorney general of the United States
• He was assistant counsel to the president at the White House from 1981 to 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. From 1982 to 1983
• From 1982 to 1983, he was a law clerk to then-Judge Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
• From 1983 to 1985, he served as a law clerk and then special assistant to the chief justice of the United States.

 

Pay close attention to what Judge Luttig says starting at 3:21:

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump against the United States represents the unsouling of America. America's democracy and the rule of law IS the heart and soul of America. It is our democracy and the rule of law that has made America the envy of the world, and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years. The Supreme Court cut the heart and soul out of America with this abominable decision of Constitutional interpretation, or, should I say, "so-called constitutional interpretation.

 

The defining maxim, if you will, of Americans since its founding has been that "in America, "no man is above the law." That can never be said about America again, after Monday's decision by the Supreme Court. Without any question whatsoever, the Supreme Court of the United States held in "Trump vs. United States" that the president of the United States, and in particular, a former president of the United States, Donald Trump, is above the law. 

This decision, within two days if not sooner, was being compared to the most opprobrious, ignominious decisions in all of Supreme Court History, such as Dred Scott, and Plessy against. Furgeson. and Korematsu against the Unites States.

Luttig then went on to state that no other court in America's history would have decided the case the same way that this Supreme Court did. He called the decision "sophomoric" and "childish" and said it was tailor-made to protect Donald Trump.

 

Judge Luttig is not the only one who was dismayed by the Court's decision. I invite you to read Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion, which starts on page 68 of this PDF. Pay particularly close attention to pages 29-30 of her opinion.

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. … The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

 

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

For all practical purposes, the Supreme Court made the president a king. The court did leave open the tiniest window to continue the prosecution of Donald Trump, but it remains a huge uphill battle. Any actions Trump took within the core of the president's responsibilities is absolutely immune from prosecution. Any actions he took that fell outside his core duties but within the outer perimeter of the president's responsibilities is at least presumed to be immune from prosecution, and it might be absolutely immune. If Smith can prove that Trump's actions to prevent the peaceful transfer of power fell outside of the president's duties, then Trump could be successfully prosecuted. But Smith will have to try this case with one hand tied behind his back. He might want to use evidence about Trump's motive to prove that his actions fell outside the responsibilities of the president. Unfortunately, the Court said, "Tough shit." Well, they didn't use those words exactly. They dressed it up in lawyerese. (See page 18 of the ruling.)

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. 

Ah, but at least we can see if any of President Trump's actions violated the law. If they were clear and flagrant violations of the law, then surely they must fall outside of the president's duties, right? After all, Article II Section 3 of the Constitution says the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." How can it be within the President's official duties to violate the law when the Constitution says he must take care that the laws be faithfully executed?

If that is what you are thinking, the Supreme Court has a message for you. "Not so fast, buddy. You're using logic. We can't have any of that around here." Again, this is from page 18 of the ruling.

Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.

As far as Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon goes--she did indeed dismiss Trump's stolen classified documents case in Florida after Supremely corrupt Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Trump v. United States saying that the Special Counsel's office was illegitimate. None of the other eight Supreme Court Justices signed onto that opinion, but it was enough for Cannon to grab onto and dismiss the case. Judge Cannon has proven time and again that she is either incompetent or extremely biased towards Donald Trump. Her rulings have been overturned by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, not once, but twice, and I suspect they will reverse her dismissal if Trump does not win the election. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so my opinion means little. But Glenn Kirschner is a former federal prosecutor with 30 years of experience. He too thinks that the Eleventh Circuit will overrule Judge Cannon. Watch this video for his critique of Cannon's dismissal of the case.

 

 

The fact that the Supreme Court has greatly limited the Justice Department's cases against Trump is not evidence that President Biden has weaponized the DOJ to go after Trump. It is, instead, evidence of the politicization and corruption of the Supreme Court and the incompetence or corruption of Judge Aileen Cannon.

So in summary, yes--the Justice Department is going after Trump and his supporters for crimes they have committed, and rightfully so. Failure to prosecute Trump after he tried to disenfranchise over 80 million voters and steal the election would only send a message to future would-be dictators: "Go ahead. Try and steal the election. Commit as many crimes as you need to stay in power. It's cool. Donald Trump was able to get away with it, so why should you worry?"

Do you still believe that Joe Biden has weaponized the Justice Department to illegitimately go after Trump and his supporters? Do you still think there is no difference between what Trump will do with the Justice Department and what Biden has done? Then please watch this video of Chris Hayes comparing the Trump Justice Department with the Biden Justice Department. If this doesn't convince you that there is a huge difference between the two, then I don't know what will.

 

Tags: