The Trump administration: the pursuit of justice or of revenge?
One can hardly blame Trump for wanting to go after the people who used lawfare against him – who invented charges and twisted the intent of statutes in order to end his political career, bankrupt him and his family, and ultimately imprison him if they possibly could manage it. Their actions should have put every American on notice that they were adopting Beria-like strategies and going very far in a dangerous direction.
That danger wasn’t only to Trump and the right. They were further undermining respect for the law itself, which had already been undermined by every miscarriage of justice that ever was, and the more obvious the injustice the more deeply the disrespect. Therefore, every time a political prosecution is mounted, the charges must be ironclad to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the prosecution is merely political and opportunistic. And the cases against Trump were quite the opposite of ironclad.
The left committed very real violations that need redress, as Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) has said:
“Now they’re like, ‘Oh, this is, this is retribution,’ and it’s like, ‘No, no. It’s justice. You really did do these things,” he said, laying out specifics of what the left has done.
“You really did target pro-life Catholics. You really did target parents who went to school board meetings, and weaponized the government. You really have put people in prison for non-violent offenses. You’ve tried to bankrupt people. You’ve completely corrupted and abused the whole purpose of the Department of Justice, and that is going to be remedied, and frankly, the people that have done it are going to be held accountable,” Davidson promised.
But there’s a caveat: it will be seen by the American people as tit-for-tat revenge unless the evidence against such offenders is crystal clear and the charges are not the result of the twisting of statutes to make them fit a situation to which they were never meant to apply. And that’s not just some sort of moral stance; it’s a practical one as well. If one of the reasons the GOP is in power is to right wrongs, the process of doing so must be seen as fair or the Republicans will lose the American people and the worm will turn once again, back to the left.
One would think a number of things the DoJ did were illegal in the actual sense. Thus, using the law to remedy them would look legit.
But what is illegal about “going after” pro-life Catholics? Each useless investigation, each case dropped after the “suspect” spent huge sums on defense, each “raid”, were they actually illegal?
The ATF managed, through diligent attention to detail, to avoid any possibility that they wouldn’t have to “legally” murder Malinowski in Little Rock. Where in the process is there a law broken?
For the most part, this is discretion we’re looking at.
Was it illegal for Lois Lerner to aim the IRS at conservative non-profits? Show me the law.
Nope. This is going to be a dirty war.
Let’s see, Neo: would it be tit-for-tat to use a 6 AM raid on his private residence, complete with swat teams, red lights, and frogmen, to bring Eric Holder and Merrick Garland in to answer questions about the way they ran the DOJ? Umm, yeah, I guess so. Ditch the frogmen. But alert CNN in advance.
Go for revenge. Go hard.
The Rule of Law in America has probably been screwed up since its inception. What happened to Trump happens most everyday across America. I would not be in a big rush to fix it.
Start with what was brought out during the targeting of pro-life Catholics and parents who went to school board meetings—include those targeted in the Trump admin and Trump himself. The Soros Crime Family and its links to the Justice systems, and those in it who are connected to Soros.
Long list, I am sure, which looks like something Matt Gaetz is extremely qualified for. I am sure Trump will not allow “revenge” or lawfare or etc. to enter in—he suffered from such and will be focused on fixing it.
I think that Richard Aubrey nails it. It’s not that the public would see it as tit-for-tat, it would be tit-for-tat.
There really isn’t a good way to use criminal law to redress these wrongs without performing the same sort of legal pretzel act as Jack Smith, Fani Willis, and Alvin Bragg. If there is, by all means, do it, but don’t be like Jack Smith and try to prosecute DOJ personnel for “conspiracy to deprive rights” or something political like that.
The best move would have been to fire everyone involved with targeting pro-lifers, parents at school board meetings, and the like . . . generally clear the Augean stables. And then get on with the task of administering the Justice Department in a neutral and non-partisan manner. A more creative response might have involved revoking security clearances or finding some sort of procedural mechanism to make it harder for these folks to be hired by the government again.
But, instead Trump fights . . . stupidly and loses. He will here too. Remember, that if Gaetz actually succeeds in getting himself confirmed and bringing all of these cases that people want, they will most likely be tried to a DC jury, just like Durham’s cases. And Durham actually had meritorious cases. Gaetz (or whoever else) is going to be bringing handwave cases like the ones that were brought against Trump.
Also, has anyone considered that when the Trump administration (inevitably) loses is retributive lawfare cases, that result is going to politically validate the actions of Trump’s enemies?
Senator Bill Hagerty lays out a clear case for Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth.
It’s interesting that his pushing back against the narrative leaves Andrea Mitchell flummoxed.
11-14-2024 Hagerty Joins Andrea Mitchell Reports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmTKEGSACuA&t=445s
The headline in the article Neo linked to:
Exclusive — Rep. Warren Davidson: Trump’s Cabinet Will Bring ‘Justice’ for Real Abuses of Power, Not Baseless Lawfare
Reading the article I didn’t get the impression he was suggesting there would be criminal cases brought against employees of the DOJ, but justice would be exposing their misuse of their position for political purposes and a cleaning house of the DOJ of anyone that has done so.
If there is a clear violation of the law, a criminal case should be brought to discourage misusing the DOJ in the future.
Has the DOJ been politicized in the past? Yes. J. Edgar Hoover famously used the FBI to dig up dirt that could be used to keep members of Congress and the executive branch in line.