 |
| Retired cop: a Trump target? (WXOW) |
Donald Trump's second term as president is barely 24 hours old, and he already has made it clear he intends to act outside the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. How did Trump manage to pull that off so quickly? By stating countless times that he plans to seek prosecutions of individuals because he perceives them as political enemies. That, however, is not the standard by which a criminal prosecution is launched. The standard is called probable cause, and it is found in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That means it is an important concept, one Trump and his allies should know about. If they move forward with prosecutions that lack probable cause, it could cause a period of protracted legal turmoil for our country.
How did we reach this point, where an unfit, ill-informed president thinks it is OK to prosecute defendants not because they have committed crimes but because Trump perceives them, rightly or wrongly, to be his enemy? How could a significant chunk of the electorate apparently vote for a candidate who stated for months leading to the Nov. 5 election that he has little or no regard for the rule of law? Michael S. Schmidt and Glenn Thrush, of The New York Times (NYT) provide insight under the headline "For Those Deemed Trump’s Enemies, a Time of Anxiety and Fear":
As Donald J. Trump returns to office, the critics, prosecutors and perceived enemies who sought to hold him accountable and banish him from American political life are now facing, with considerable trepidation, a president who is assuming power having vowed to exact vengeance.
Mr. Trump has promised to investigate and punish adversaries, especially those involved in his four prosecutions and the congressional investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Those threats, along with his stated intention to grant clemency to at least some of those who carried out the Jan. 6 assault, have many in Washington and elsewhere on edge, fearing not just government action against them but that the telegraphing of his wishes has created an environment of unpredictable, free-range retribution by his supporters.
One person with concerns is a former police officer who was beaten by a pro-Trump mob at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Schmidt and Thrush report:
Michael Fanone, a former police officer who was among those attacked by the pro-Trump crowd on Jan. 6, 2021, has been an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump. He said he feared that the violence and threats that have already been directed at him and his family — including his mother — will only get worse after Mr. Trump returns to office.
“I’m most concerned about the potential for violence and acts of violence that will continue not just against me but members of my family,” he said. “My concern is that people are going to believe that if they attack me or members of my family physically that Donald Trump will absolve them of their acts, and who is to say he wouldn’t.”
The New York Times contacted more than two dozen of Mr. Trump’s most outspoken critics and perceived enemies to ask about their level of concern. Despite having spoken out in the past or having participated in proceedings against him, almost all declined to address their worries publicly, saying speaking out now could make them even more conspicuous targets.
But speaking on the condition of anonymity, they laid out their concerns.
Some said they were worried that the Justice Department or F.B.I. could launch internal or criminal investigations into actions they took during the course of their work, even if they acted legally and in good faith. The fact that Kash Patel, Mr. Trump’s choice to run the F.B.I., has published an extensive enemies list, has only intensified their anxieties.
Others said they were concerned that they might lose private-sector jobs or clients. And some, like Mr. Fanone, said they took seriously the possibility that Trump supporters, heeding his calls for retribution, would harass or attack them or their families. Mr. Trump’s plan to offer pardons to some Jan. 6 rioters would further erode norms of the rule of law, they said, making everything even worse.
Even as Mr. Trump has repeatedly invoked the threat of retaliation, some of his aides and advisers have suggested that he should not always be taken literally. “I’m not looking to go back into the past,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, going on to say that he thought his attorney general and F.B.I. director would on their own decide to look into foes like the members of the House select committee on Jan. 6.
In response to a question about whether Mr. Trump planned to weaponize the government against his enemies, a spokesman for his transition team impugned President Biden, claiming without evidence that Mr. Biden had weaponized the justice system against his political opponents.
The notion of Trump threatening to investigate his "enemies" is not new, Schmidt and Thrush write:
During Mr. Trump’s first term, many people who were targets of his frequent calls for investigation or other retaliation found themselves under scrutiny by the government, costing them in time, money, reputation and creating great anxiety for them and their families.
In some cases, Mr. Trump does not need to take any action himself because his allies are doing the work for him. House Republicans issued a report last month saying that Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming representative who helped lead the inquiry into the Jan. 6 riot and what led to it, should face an F.B.I. investigation for her work on the panel. And Republicans on Capitol Hill have been weighing whether to demand testimony from the former special counsel, Jack Smith, who pursued the two federal criminal cases against Mr. Trump.
To a degree, some of the people said, the fear of retribution was already having the effect of tamping down public criticism of Mr. Trump at a time when corporate executives and other prominent figures who had previously kept their distance or criticized him are rushing to signal their support.
One of the few people who was willing to speak out was Charles Kupperman, a former deputy national security adviser for Mr. Trump whom Mr. Patel named as one of his enemies in a book he wrote. Mr. Kupperman said he was willing to speak publicly because he wanted the public to know how Mr. Patel is unqualified to serve as F.B.I. director given his temperament and lack of qualifications.
“What are they going to do to me?” he said. “I’m 74 years old, I’ve been married for 55 years, I’m satisfied I’ve done everything to help my country and build a better future for my family. I’m not worried personally. I still believe if anything happens the rule of law will prevail.”
One public critic of Mr. Trump — who played a prominent role in one of the efforts to hold him accountable during his first term — said in an interview that he recently bought a gun for the first time in his life because he was afraid that Trump supporters emboldened by a president willing to pardon them will attack him and his family at home.
One of the many Republicans on the enemies list compiled by Mr. Patel said he was proud of his government service but was worried that having his name made public would prompt some zealous Trump supporter to target his family
One Democratic lawyer, who has heckled Mr. Trump publicly for years, declined to speak on the record for this article out of concern that his statements could result in retribution not only against himself, but also against his legal clients. He has advised others in his situation to hold their fire until they have a chance to determine how far Mr. Trump is willing to go.
One departing White House official, who was present for many of the Biden administration’s biggest decisions, said with a laugh that he had a two-step plan for his immediate future.
Step One: Take a long vacation on the opposite side of the globe.
Step Two: Fly home and hire a lawyer.
Other likely targets are not wasting time in planning to fight back, and hiring a lawyer might be a wise early step. We noted in the first paragraph that Trump could step into a period of legal turmoil -- of his own making -- likely in the form of lawsuits for a tort called malicious prosecution. A rash of such cases, driven by baseless prosecutions, could keep Trump and his administration tied up for months, even years. (Immunity does not protect former presidents from criminal prosecution or impeachment.) Schmidt and Thrush write:
For many, the shoring up of defenses is already underway. Prominent witnesses and investigators from various government inquiries into Mr. Trump are convinced they themselves will now be investigated by Congress or the Justice Department and have retained powerful law firms in Washington, which often specialize in representing politicians under corruption investigation or Fortune 500 corporations facing complex legal and regulatory problems.
People close to Mr. Trump acknowledge that they are engaged, to an extent, in a game of psychological warfare, exacting payback for failed impeachments, congressional inquiries and criminal prosecutions that Mr. Trump has long labeled witch hunts. And they are enjoying putting a scare into those who, in their view, hunted them for years.
But this fear campaign also serves a pragmatic purpose: It serves as a force multiplier for outnumbered Trump political appointees at massive federal agencies at a time when they are forced to rely on an experienced Washington-area federal work force they view as the enemy.
One of the goals during the transition, according to several people close to the Trump team, was to demoralize and unnerve liberal career officials, particularly at the Justice Department, inducing them to leave — and to make it clear that anyone who stayed needed to follow the dictates of Trump appointees or face transfer, relocation or disciplinary action.
During the four years Mr. Trump spent out of office, he was the subject of a major congressional investigation, was indicted four times, was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, lost a civil case that cost him hundreds of millions of dollars and became a felon through a guilty verdict in a Manhattan courtroom. Those proceedings brought out a new batch of people whom he spent much of the 2020 presidential campaign saying he wanted to target if he were returned to the White House.
Mr. Trump is now going to take office with the Supreme Court having ruled that there is no prohibition on a president consulting with the attorney general about cases, and that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office.
In her confirmation hearing this week, Pam Bondi, Mr. Trump’s choice for attorney general, sought to tamp down concerns that she would pursue punitive investigations against people identified as enemies by Mr. Patel or Mr. Trump.
But she did not entirely rule out ordering an investigation at Mr. Trump’s behest, provided she had arrived at that conclusion independently, determined it had merit and was conducted in accordance with the law.
Pam Bondi should be familiar with the downsides of bringing prosecutions without probable cause. If she isn't, and cannot advise Trump appropriately, she is not qualified to be AG and should step aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment