Here is how I feel, being worried that Trump will once again be elected. What could he do if he were elected again? I am not a reporter, just a reader but I am not too stupid.
Donald Trump has advocated for a surge of punitive criminal charges if elected. He has previously pledged to imprison his opponents, but this time would be different if he were to be elected to a second term.
1111r
One thing has been kind of consistent in the most unpredictable presidential campaign of the previous half-century: Donald Trump's declared desire to prosecute a broad range of his opponents if he becomes president.
Years have passed with an ever-increasing number of goals. From President Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and to Anthony Fauci, the members of the Jan. 6 committee, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, covers a wide range of Trump's perceived and actual political and legal opponents. A few weeks back, Trump threatened Democratic attorneys, political operatives, contributors, voters, and election officials, among others, putting hundreds, if not thousands, of his political opponents in the sights of his prosecutor.
Through a plethora of speeches, interviews, and social media posts, Trump has discussed his intention to launch a prosecutorial vengeance tour. In a vaguely worded proposal to "hold responsible individuals who have exploited the authority of Government to unfairly prosecute their Political Opponents," the Republican Party platform hints to this possibility.
Naturally, Trump makes a lot of empty promises. Several notable Trump followers and associates brush off his remarks as political jargon, or at the very least, try to make sense of them. Mike Davis, a conservative Republican lawyer who often criticizes the prosecution for prosecuting Trump in criminal matters, says, "He campaigned on, 'I'm going lock her up.'" Davis claims that Trump failed to follow through on his threats against Hillary.
According to him, "it's simply not conceivable" because to the bureaucratic and procedural hurdles that would be involved in his dream role of becoming a special counsel or viceroy and exacting severe revenge on all these motherfuckers. He believes that retribution is an essential aspect of justice. (Davis said, "Obviously I'm trolling, but I'm doing it to make a point.") in reference to his own public remarks that named many targets of a second Trump Justice Department.
This is, however, a very significant issue for Trump's political opponents and for some of the most seasoned federal law enforcement officers in the nation.
"All you have to do is listen to the former president himself," a former top Justice Department official told me recently. "He has come right out and said that's what he wants to do. He was obviously very frustrated during the last administration, when he wasn't able to have as much influence in that area as he wanted." The official was granted anonymity to discuss Trump's interest in prosecuting his legal and political opponents.
According to Andrew McCabe, who served as acting director of the FBI throughout Trump's administration, Trump "certainly will" carry out his threats. From personal experience, McCabe can say, "It's one of the things that actually matters to him." His world was turned upside down when he became the object of Trump's baseless attacks and faced threats of indictment from Trump's Justice Department over remarks he made to internal investigators regarding his disclosures to the press.
There have been several changes since Trump's previous administration, both personally and institutionally, that make it simpler for him to order the Justice Department to go after his adversaries.
Trump will desire revenge after going through the court system in the last year and a half. Even if his legal problems almost vanish once he gets the White House, he is likely not to forget that he is a convicted felon and that he still faces trials that might result in his incarceration. By initiating protracted, expensive, and very disruptive criminal investigations and prosecutions, he could easily ruin the lives of several of his political opponents.
It would still be punishing for the targeted even if the effort didn't lead to actual convictions. Not only might it silence Trump's political opponents, but it may also severely damage public trust in the federal criminal justice system.
2222r
Opponents' List
Trump has no qualms about bragging about who he targets, in contrast to other presidents who kept their enemies' lists under wraps. Here is an unofficial (and likely incomplete) list of the individuals he has proposed for prosecution based on his own remarks and social media postings.
Vice President Joe Biden
Trump has often leveled unfounded accusations against Biden, claiming that he has accepted bribes and kickbacks from foreign nations. Trump has also taken aim at the Justice Department, which indicted him twice during the Biden administration. He has promised to investigate Biden by designating a special prosecutor.
Biden brothers Hunter and Jim
The president's son Hunter and brother Jim were allegedly involved in shady international business activities, according to Trump's long-running claims. Trump had previously pledged to "appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president of the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family" following his first federal indictment. Hunter was convicted earlier this year on charges of tax fraud and gun possession brought by the Justice Department.
Harris, Kamala
It's possible that Trump's animosity for Harris, his opponent in 2024, is motivated by more than just politics. If Harris gets elected in November and Trump's criminal matters continue unresolved in the years to come, he might find himself in federal jail. A fabricated photo of Harris and others in orange jumpsuits in prison was recently disseminated by Trump.
President Clinton's wife, Hillary
Trump said throughout the 2016 campaign that Clinton "has got to go to prison" over her use of a private email server while serving as Obama's secretary of state. While in power, Trump attempted to have her prosecuted via his advisers, but they prevented him. Included in Trump's AI-generated picture of his incarcerated adversaries was Clinton as well.
In its decision that granted the president broad criminal protection, the Supreme Court essentially expanded the scope of presidential power. The court's ruling that the president has almost unchecked authority over the Justice Department is particularly noteworthy.
Trump might secretly order his attorney general to bring politically motivated charges against his opponents.
It might potentially be more subtle.
By utilizing policy and personnel levers that were either not available or not considered during his previous administration, Trump has the potential to weaponize the Justice Department in unprecedented ways. This could involve appointing submissive officials to positions within the FBI and the Justice Department, as well as introducing new proposals to facilitate his control over departmental operations and the removal of career officials who are unwilling to cooperate.
Not that Trump's desire for vengeance would necessarily be successful every time. Plenty of aspects of the American criminal justice system are outside the purview of any president, as the first Trump administration demonstrated. No charges need be filed if prosecutors so choose. There are limitations to the expansive federal criminal provisions. Grand juries and trial juries have the power to undermine prosecutors in cases when the evidence are lacking; this has happened in several high-profile investigations and prosecutions that Trump was involved in. Ultimately, at least some facts are required to sustain a criminal case.
The targets—and the nation—would nonetheless bear the brunt of even a haphazard attempt at politically motivated charges, as Trump has considered. Here's a possible scenario.
If Trump is re-elected to a second term as president, he and his advisors will undoubtedly put in a lot of effort to fill the next government with devoted followers who will not resist his radical policies.
"The characters will be completely different. According to McCabe, "the Don McGahns of the world—who vowed to resign when he said he'd fire [special counsel] Robert Mueller—those folks will not be engaged." McGahn was Trump's former White House attorney.
"Those individuals will not be able to obstruct his path," the ex-Justice Department official informed. What if everyone was like Jeff Clark?”
Naturally, Clark is the former top DOJ official who may be disbarred for attempting to use the department's authority to assist Trump in reversing the election. Before the Supreme Court's immunity decision essentially insulated him from prosecution, he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal election subversion case against Trump. Now he's being considered for the position of attorney general in the event that Trump runs for office again.
Even if the Senate were to be controlled by Republicans, it is debatable if Clark, who is very controversial, would be confirmed. However, it is possible that he could serve as an interim attorney general and do immediate harm. It goes without saying that Trump's choice of AG is pivotal. This individual may be given the power to decide whether cases involving Trump's alleged enemies will be prosecuted and even the authority to provide funding for such cases.
Beyond the attorney general, Trump has a plethora of other appointees—perhaps most notably, the White House counsel—who he might use to further a retaliatory prosecution campaign. Importantly, the president chooses the individual for that position personally; confirmation by the Senate is not necessary.
Ex-White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said, "If a president were to decide that he wanted to urge the Department of Justice to go after a specific political enemy, he would mostly accomplish that via the White House Counsel's Office." This was applicable throughout Obama's presidency. "The president isn't going to handle those specifics directly," the statement said, "because he's a busy guy and there's a lot of follow-up, like how it's going to happen and whatnot."
A worsening of the situation would result from involving the White House attorney. It has been widely anticipated that, in order to prevent any impression of unlawful presidential influence with law enforcement, the White House would not collaborate with the Justice Department on particular criminal matters since President Richard Nixon's departure. While in office, Trump openly and privately disregarded the policy, but with the right mix of policy adjustments and supportive appointments, he may conceal his actions in a second term.
"It is my suspicion that the no-contacts policy will not be renewed under a Trump administration," Eggleston informed me. "Every president reinstates it; it is put into effect by executive order."
To further his goal of vengeance, Trump's nomination to the post of deputy attorney general is also essential. The deputy attorney general is responsible for many of the department's routine operations, such as coordinating with the United States attorneys who are responsible for the nationwide enforcement of federal laws.
Indeed, Trump would also have a significant chance to fill the U.S. attorney seats, which are chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. This is especially the case in places like the nation's capital, Manhattan, northern Virginia, and Maryland, where he has his target list, and in Delaware, where legal action against the Biden family may go farther. While Trump was in power, his administration sought to have former Secretary of State John Kerry prosecuted by the U.S. attorneys' offices in Maryland and Manhattan, but neither agency took the request seriously.
Trump and his associates will certainly have a better grasp of the fact that even US attorneys in less renowned areas have substantial and unexpected authority this time around. John Huber investigated many matters pertaining to Hillary Clinton when he was the US attorney for Utah. After Trump criticized Huber for being a "garbage disposal unit for vital papers," the inquiry was finally concluded without charges.
As with the post of head of the FBI, this one is ripe for Trump to seize. Trump has betrayed Christopher Wray, who he named head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and who was almost overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. Wray still has a few years remaining in his 10-year tenure. If Trump were to become president, he might remove Wray and attempt to install a more submissive figurehead who would not think twice about allocating FBI officers and resources to pursue retaliatory charges.
Other key positions for a Trump-led vengeance tour include the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, who provides legal advice to the White House and other executive branch agencies, and the FBI general counsel, who is appointed by the director of the FBI and advises FBI officials on investigative operations. If the OLC issues opinions that justify government officials' wrongdoing, such officials may utilize those opinions in court to protect themselves from possible legal responsibility for their illegal actions. A number of very important and controversial opinions were released by the Trump appointee who oversaw the OLC during his administration.
Equally important might be the chief of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, another Trump nominee up for confirmation by the Senate who handles a broad variety of criminal cases with national and international ramifications. This individual is responsible for a variety of tasks within the department, including the prosecution of cases involving public corruption and the oversight of the Fraud Section, which is responsible for the nationwide prosecution of financial fraud. Career officials are meant to administer such offices, but in reality, Trump's associates and appointments might have a lot of say in who runs those agencies.
The main building of the United States Department of Justice is seen.
Ankush Khardori argues that Trump has the potential to weaponize the Justice Department in unprecedented ways, such as by appointing submissive people to high-ranking positions within the FBI and the department, and by proposing new measures to facilitate Trump's control over departmental operations and the removal of career officials who refuse to cooperate. Pictures by Francis Chung/POLITICO
Furthermore, Trump has the option to instruct his attorney general to designate a special counsel or counsels to investigate and prosecute his targets. This course of action is likewise precedent-setting. In order to continue investigating the beginnings of the Trump-Russia investigations even after Trump's term ended, Attorney General Bill Barr designated John Durham, who was then the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to act as special counsel while he was in office. Despite the overwhelming public evidence to the contrary, numerous Republicans and conservative media figures have maintained that the Trump-Russia probe was corrupt from the beginning and that Trump was persecuted. This, despite the fact that the Durham investigation culminated in a historic prosecutorial bust.
Appointing "a true special prosecutor to go after" Biden may not be required—or even recommended from a purely strategic standpoint—anymore, after Trump's indictment by special counsel Jack Smith in the secret materials case in Florida.
This is due to the fact that Aileen Cannon, the assigned judge, ruled that Smith's nomination violated the constitution in July. This ruling stands in stark contrast to previous court decisions on the matter, but as Mike Davis astutely pointed out during our conversation, the Supreme Court has the power to "confirm that position if it comes to them."
Trump now has a public basis, however flimsy, thanks to Cannon's decision, to keep any investigations of his political opponents inside the purview of the Justice Department, overseen only by his own political appointees.
'If Trump is elected, they'd better not lose their jobs.'
Even more direct influence over Justice Department cases may be achieved if Trump and his appointees changed the policies that allow them to do so.
Many in the Trump administration and those who supported him in the past have urged the president to implement his contentious "Schedule F" plan and turn many permanent Justice Department posts into political appointees. They have also laid out a new proposed chain of command in which the director of the FBI, who now reports to the attorney general and deputy attorney general, would instead report to less senior political appointees in the Justice Department. This is based on the supposed theory that the counsel's office is partly to blame for the Trump-Russia probe because they approved some of the bureau's investigative steps. In principle, this move would make it more difficult for the FBI director to covertly resist or obstruct any initiatives ordered by the White House or leaders of the Justice Department. The attorney general and deputy attorney general have enormous portfolios and many demands on their time.
According to Davis, the prosecutions that began on January 6th were very broad and harsh, and he would want to see reforms made in reaction to this.
"That whole Washington, DC, US attorney's office.... "I mean that one when I say the it needs a cleaning," he said. The southern border may be their new assignment, or they could investigate and prosecute genuine criminal cases.
He made it clear that he was talking about the political appointees and supervisors, not the line prosecutors, who came up with the legal theories and techniques, and not the prosecutors themselves. "Those prosecutors involved with the January 6 unit—if Trump is elected, they better find other employment," Davis said. "Those folks, fuck them."
Those in the Justice Department should face stiffer punishment, according to some Trump supporters. According to Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Trump and current prison inmate, "the senior members of DOJ that have prosecuted President Trump," including special counsel Jack Smith, as well as Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and Attorney General Merrick Garland will be further targeted in a second Trump administration.
But the government's criminal enforcement system has already undergone a very substantial transformation.
The Supreme Court's ruling over the summer shielding Trump to some extent from criminal charges related to his alleged attempt to steal the 2020 election brought about that shift. The six Republican nominees to the court, among other things, ruled that Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing involving his "conclusive and preclusive" power to execute the laws, as stated by the judges, and any alleged corruption involving the Justice Department.
It would be easy for Trump to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling as a green light to order his political appointees and agency employees to pursue his favorite targets without fear of external scrutiny. The law would have no power on him even if they were made public.
A wide range of previously unimaginable and severe events are now theoretically within the president's purview, according to the Supreme Court's ruling.
In a purely pragmatic sense, Trump may see the Supreme Court's ruling as a green light to personally attack his political appointees and agency employees without fear of legal repercussions. Pictures by Francis Chung/POLITICO
"The president's staff was not shielded by the Supreme Court."
However, Trump would continue to encounter several challenges in this domain, some of which surfaced during his first term.
First of all, there are significantly more people on Trump's hit list than there are obvious legal accusations. This poses a huge obstacle for any prosecution, regardless of whether it's part of a broad political vendetta or not. For example, special counsel Robert Hur's report said that a jury would likely not find Biden guilty if the charges were based on his personal possession of secret materials.
Line prosecutors, who would be the ones to fight and try these cases in court, have their careers and reputations on the line, so it's not easy to convince them to support charges that aren't solid legally. Sure, it's achievable, but it's not always easy.
“Laws, regulations and policies offer a significant incentive for Justice Department officers to preserve the tradition of making independent decisions,” said Rod Rosenstein, a former deputy attorney general in Trump's administration.
Being on the receiving end of Trump's entreaties while in office, including pressure to go against former FBI Director James Comey and Mueller, gives Rosenstein a unique viewpoint.
"Whenever the president remarked about pursuing political opponents and going easy on political supporters, I viewed it as an opinion and not a command since the Justice Department’s choices about which cases to investigate and prosecute need to be based on facts," Rosenstein still told me.
Not only may state bar authorities and internal watchdogs theoretically prevent prosecutors from taking part in warrantless investigations, but they also exist.
"It is within the authority of federal courts to reject cases," Rosenstein argued. "The jury has the option not to find guilt."
"The rule of law is something that most conservative attorneys feel profoundly about," he said. "Respecters of the rule of law do not want prosecutors to pursue Democrats either, even if they feel that Republicans are unjustly targeted by prosecutors."
Eggleston went on to say that the president was shielded from legal consequences by the Supreme Court's decision this summer, but that the president's staff would still be at risk of legal repercussions if Justice Department officials follow Trump's obviously illegal orders. (At some time, Trump may be able to pardon himself and remove that publicity.)
Prosecutors would still face grand juries and trial juries in the appropriate areas, regardless of if Trump were to successfully launch criminal charges against some of his political opponents. Jurors may be located in heavily Democratic locations, such as Washington, northern Virginia, or Manhattan, where the number of Democrats voting could be so high as to foil the most audacious plots, given the possible targets.
It was privately thought by a few seasoned Washington attorneys that the Justice Department may have been compelled to recuse itself when grand jurors informed prosecutors that they would not charge McCabe if asked, leading to the eventual failure of the prosecution attempt. The only two trials involving the Durham inquiry that reached the jury stage were both acquitted.
Additionally, trial judges do have the power to reject clearly baseless accusations or to reverse verdicts that lack enough proof. Of course, there are further courts that hear appeals, and in the most important jurisdictions, Trump has appointed a small number of judges to those seats.
Even if they would welcome the possibility of a genuine prosecutorial vengeance tour, those like Davis are quite pessimistic about its prospects in light of these limitations.
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is accompanied by U.S. Law enforcement from the Capitol.
Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI, is accompanied by U.S. Capitol Police as they prepare for a December 21, 2017, committee hearing in Washington. According to McCabe, Trump "certainly will" carry out his threats, as he informs Khardori. | Getty Images/Chipsode Somodevilla
While it's true that Hillary Clinton was not in prison, it's hard to imagine that prosecutors would have been so strict with Hunter Biden if Trump hadn't publicly criticized the president's son for so long. A second of the two criminal charges against Hunter Biden resulted in his conviction earlier this month.
And let us not forget that the targets are real people; even if Trump's proposed prosecution effort fails, it will still have a devastating impact on them.
During our conversation, a former senior DOJ official made the astute observation that, "the mere fact that they're under criminal investigation has a tremendous impact on their lives and reputations." Being under investigation and prosecution in a complicated case can be costly and emotionally taxing, regardless of whether someone is indicted or not.
After speaking with McCabe, I was informed that he believed that the accounts of what transpired were being too sympathetic.
Even though McCabe has since had the legal actions that Trump initiated settled in his favor, he was candid when I questioned him about his thoughts on the matter at the time.
According to him, it is "head-spinning" to worry about everything after a 21-year career, culminating with directing the FBI. "Being thrown into bankruptcy by legal bills, going to prison, and obtaining a job again."
He feels fortunate that he was able to sidestep such issues. However, he was well-versed in the potential consequences from his time spent working for the federal government and could say, "It's alarming and unsettling on a very sensible level."
The tiniest of individuals caught in Trump's legal net may have life-altering effects.
A low-level FBI attorney pled guilty to changing an internal email in connection with the FISA application for Trump’s 2016 campaign aide Carter Page; this was the only conviction that Durham was able to get in his inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigations. The details of the case have been twisted by conservative media outlets and Trump supporters, but the judge who handed down the sentence found that the behavior, while plainly unwarranted, was probably minor and had nothing to do with anti-Trump prejudice.
Though he did get probation in the end, the plea agreement essentially ruined the lawyer's career with the government. In the end, he consented to suspensions of his law license in several jurisdictions, although normally, a government official would only face internal, non-public disciplinary actions for his actions.
Those who are against Trump in the 2024 election may express concerns that "the rule of law" would be undermined if he becomes office, especially considering Trump's ever-expanding list of remarks on his plans to punish his political opponents.
The American flag and a Trump banner that reads "never surrender" are visible.
In his first trial for criminal charges, a jury convicted Trump guilty on all 34 counts of felony record falsification. Photo credit: Getty Images/David Dee Delgado
The worries are well-founded, and the rhetoric is stirring, but if Trump's first term is any indication, we may witness more of the same kind of government behavior that political and legal philosophers call "rule by law" — where the government favors its allies and punishes its enemies.
This may not be the complete disintegration of legal institutions that some imagine in an absolute dictatorship, but it is harmful all the same—a gradual dwindling of democratic rights that can ruin people's lives and stifle lawful opposition to the government, similar to the democratic retreat that has occurred in nations like Hungary recently.
Regardless matter how you look at it, the stakes are high for everyone concerned, including our nation's tradition of free speech and political opposition. It is remarkable that numerous prominent Republican lawyers and former Trump officials have remained opposed to Trump, citing fears that he will intensify his malicious prosecutions from the first term and try to bring charges against a broader range of individuals.
When asked about the "revenge tour," McCabe said, "people aren't thinking imaginatively enough."
A number of individuals in the United States and elsewhere have long entertained the notion of a six-shooter-wielding cowboy who refuses to accept no for an answer, representing the six justices of the Supreme Court. Regardless of the consequences, the United States of America will remain a third-rate nation characterized by incompetent Democrats who are too preoccupied with their bank accounts to bother registering to vote and dishonest Republicans who are either too foolish or too scared to face the reality of a crumbling Constitution.
×