Returns and predictions have long been two of President Trump’s touchstones. He settled to score points in return for every perceived slight and blamed his goal for what he did. During his second term, this approach fell into law with dangerous consequences.
The Justice Department gives Mr. Trump a way to solve scores and help friends than most other areas of the presidential authorities. Of course, no one has no guilty rulings, no one has been convicted, but by conducting an investigation alone, the federal government can impose devastating reputation and financial costs.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has essentially unlimited discretion to stay away from allies’ crimes: stopping ongoing Justice Department investigations, ending existing prosecutions, and even overturning the resolution of the case. The Constitution does not limit the President’s power to pardon anyone at any time.
For decades, at least since the consequences of Watergate, the Justice Department’s custom has been to establish independent measures away from the president’s political interests. This tradition is particularly strong among low-level federal prosecutors and law enforcement officers, whose professions are allowed to continue seamlessly from a government. From day one, President Trump and his allies broke this unwritten but true understanding.
On January 20, the president issued an executive order aimed at resolving the “unprecedented Third World Weaponization Prosecution Power” during President Joe Biden’s administration. Mr. Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to correct departmental actions against “perceived political opponents,” especially several rioters at the Capitol on January 6, where the president pardoned him that day.
Weaponization can be done in two ways: by punishing opponents or rewarding supporters. Despite the execution of the order, the Trump administration has been doing both.
Ms. Bundy’s Justice Department quickly took action to remove lawyers and some FBI agents led by the defendants on January 6. These professional government employees were punished not because they engaged in misconduct or because their prosecution lacked merits—their case passed the convening of federal judges, but for simple reasons, because they offended the president, which proved to be a charge of shooting.
Mr. Trump’s main tool for revenge was Ed Martin, who was originally chosen as a temporary attorney for the District of Columbia, the largest U.S. federal attorney’s office, whom Mr. Martin called “President Trump’s lawyer.” (In fact, government lawyers do not represent the president as an individual, but the constitution and laws of the United States.) Not only did Mr. Martin fire or demote prosecutors, they filed the Jan. 6 case, which included some, some of which were represented by private practitioners at the time, and he also investigated other BIDEN-BIDEN-BEADS based on stupidity, which he is still investigating.
Denise Cheung, a senior prosecutor in the office, resigned instead of following Mr. Martin’s instructions to try to revoke the $20 billion grant awarded by Biden’s environmental program. Mr. Martin also threatened to sue Democratic lawmakers Chuck Schumer and Robert Garcia’s speeches, allegedly threatening Mr. Trump’s allies. Additionally, Mr. Martin informed Georgetown University Law Center that his office will no longer employ students from the distinguished institution, or any law school or university to “continue teaching and leverage DEI” – diversity, equity and inclusion. (As the dean of Georgetown Law School aptly replied, Mr. Martin’s threat was “an attack on the mission of the university as a Jesuit and Catholic institution” and could be a violation of the Constitution.
In a broader step against the perceived enemy, Mr. Trump embarked on an unprecedented offensive against law firms representing the president despises clients. So far, the president’s goals include the Washington big company Covington & Burling completing pro bono legal work for Jack Smith, a special counsel who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Trump after the president’s congressional allies began to review Mr. Smith’s actions, while Perkins Coie and another company owning Greater Washington, representing Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats.
These lawyers are right. Indeed, clients representing conflicting with the interests of power personnel are listed as one of the most glorious bar traditions. However, in response, the president ordered the federal government to “terminate” any engagement with any company, revoked lawyers’ security permits, and even directed Perkins personnel to be denied access to federal buildings.
The president’s actions are an existential threat to the company, and that’s what they mean. His goal is to make both companies so toxic that their customers will flee, which will represent a disastrous blow. The bigger message is clear: Mr. Trump is following anyone who offends or opposes him, and he will use the president’s power to extract the biggest consequences.
But the president understands the value of carrots and sticks. The presidency, especially Mr. Trump’s command of the Justice Department, Mr. Trump rewarded his supporters. This is the most obvious thing about New York Mayor Eric Adams. After being charged with bribery and other crimes in the final months of the Biden administration, Mr. Adams embarked on a charm offensive against the new president, visiting Mr. Trump of Florida and taking office.
The mayor’s administration paid off as Mr. Trump’s Justice Department filed a case against Mr. Adams. In this way, the government did not cite any flaws in evidence against any misconduct by the mayor or prosecutor in Manhattan, but simply put it simply that the case “inappropriately limits the ability of Mayor Adams to fully focus and resources on illegal immigration and violent crimes that escalate under the policies of the prior government.” (Several prosecutors in Adams’ case, including interim U.S. attorneys in Manhattan, resigned in protest.)
Furthermore, the fact that the Justice Department requires the case to be “unbiased” means that if Mr. Adams is not satisfied with the Washington administration, the prosecution can be reconsidered, suggesting that the strategy is intended to keep Mr. Adams consistent. (The judge has not ruled that the government’s motion to dismiss the case.)
The Justice Department seems to be working on finding ways to reward supporters. Last year, Colorado’s former county clerk Tina Peters was convicted on state criminal charges for tampering with the voting machine to show that their lawsuit against Trump was rigged in the 2020 election. The Justice Department rarely inserts itself into the state for prosecution, but Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth briefly joined Ms. Peters’ federal court belief in her country last week. In a statement to the court, Mr. Ross said he was in accordance with the executive order of President Trump’s administration to “weaponize” under President Biden.
With the use of presidential power more directly to reward allies, Mr. Trump uses pardon power in unprecedented ways. Of course, it is well known that the president has pardoned almost all the rioters among almost all 1,600 thugs who were charged with crimes at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Mr. Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion protesters who invaded and blocked clinics. Ross Ulbricht, a hero of the crypto movement, was sentenced to life imprisonment for running an underground market used by drug dealers. Rod Blagojevich became a Trump supporter for the conviction of the governor of Illinois. The president also plans to pardon for unfortunate baseball star Pete Rose, who remains a hero for most of the United States.
With the recent president saving controversial pardons in the end of his clauses and receiving very few pardons from the outset, Mr. Trump’s early pardon offense suggests that he plans to use such power in his second term. In this way, the president can guarantee himself a steady stream of originating from a desire to forgive other men for committing crimes in the Oval Office.
There is a significant difference between the president’s law enforcement returns agenda and other controversial plans for his second term, including the government’s efficiency efforts led by Elon Musk. The spending cuts imposed by Mr. Trump have been heavily challenged in court, with some success even in the Supreme Court. The court may block Trump’s plan.
However, the President has the right to enforce or refuse to enforce the checks and balances of the law. Mr. Trump may pardon, there is no limit at all. The courts and Congress have little if any, in these matters. Only historical norms and prescribed customs can limit the president – or, in this case, they do not.
