SUMMARY
Donald Trump has demonstrated autocratic tendencies that have only accelerated after his acquittal in the U.S. Senate.
- Trump instructed aids and administration officials to defy congressional subpoenas; Trump himself refused to testify to Mueller or during impeachment trial.
- Multiple states changed republican primary rules demonstrating a willingness to end elections to benefit one person: Donald Trump.
- Trump’s White House paralleled authoritarian regimes or monarchies by appointing his relatives Jared and Ivanka to the White House.
- Trump threatened to withhold federal money or use federal agencies to retaliate against states that opposed him like California and New York.
- Trump threatened and punished political rivals by firing witnesses in that took part in the impeachment hearing or leading “lock her up chants” against women leaders.
- Trump advocated for police brutality, a hallmark of authoritarianism
- Trump attacked and threatened judges he disagreed with, echoing the same way autocrats attempted to strip the judiciary of independence.
- Trump impeachment defense rested on the autocratic idea that as President he had sole authority to commit crimes if he felt it were in best interest of the American people.
- Trump treated his Attorneys General like a personal lawyer rather than lawyer for the United States - essentially weaponizing state resources for his own defense
- Trump sent DHS to Democrat governed cities, used federal law enforcement to violently crack down on protestors
- Trump's DHS compiled intelligence reports on journalists who reported on leaked documents
Note: Trump’s preference for authoritarian leaders is covered in the Foreign Policy section.
¶ Trump Instructed Aids And Administration Officials To Defy Congressional Subpoenas
¶ Trump Refused To Be Interviewed By Mueller
Mueller Did Not Subpoena Trump Because It Would Take Too Long To Go Through Legal Challenges. According to Vox, “Mueller then went on to explain the real reason he chose not to force Trump to submit to questioning: Subpoenaing Trump and fighting his likely inevitable challenge to a subpoena would’ve taken way too long. ‘At the outset, after we took over the investigation and began it and pursued it, quite honestly, one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish was getting the interview of the president. We negotiated with him for a little over a year,’ Mueller said. ‘Finally, we were almost toward the end of our investigation and we’d had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president,’ he continued. ‘We decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation.’” [Vox, 7/24/19]
Mueller Said Trump’s Written Answers Were “Certainly Not As Useful As The Interview Would Be.” According to Vox, “Mueller acknowledged that Trump did respond to written questions the special counsel eventually ended up sending him, but conceded that the president’s responses were ‘certainly not as useful as the interview would be.’” [Vox, 7/24/19]
Trump Lawyers Said They Never Planned To Allow Mueller To Interview Trump. According to Reuters, “The strategy paid off, insulating Trump from the legal jeopardy presented by a sit-down interview with the special counsel’s team - an interview that Trump had said publicly he wanted to do. There was even a tentative date for the interview - Jan. 27, 2018 - though one of Trump’s lawyers told Reuters he never intended to make the president available to Mueller. And Mueller never issued a subpoena demanding testimony.” [Reuters, 3/26/19]
¶ White House Aides Were Instructed To Defy Congressional Subpoenas From The Judiciary Committee
¶ Trump Stated That The White House Was ‘Fighting All The Subpoenas’
President Trump: ‘We’re Fighting All The Subpoenas.’ According to Roll Call, ‘The president also made clear that he and his legal team are dug in for what could be a protracted fight with House Democrats over their demands for witnesses to appear before several committees and requests for documents. Legal experts and political analysts already are predicting court battles and stall tactics that could last well into the 2020 election cycle [...] ‘The subpoena is ridiculous,’ he said as he departed the White House for a speech on prescription drugs in Atlanta. ‘We’re fighting all the subpoenas.’’ [Roll Call, 4/24/19]
¶ The White House Ordered Current And Former Staff Members To Defy Congressional Subpoenas At The Behest Of The President
White House Ordered Rob Porter And Rick Dearborn To Defy Subpoenas Regarding Mueller’s Russia Investigation. According to the Guardian, ‘The White House has stonewalled numerous congressional investigations. Last month it ordered Rob Porter, the ex-White House staff secretary, and Rick Dearborn, who was deputy chief of staff, to defy subpoenas regarding special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Analysts suggest Trump sees little downside in brazen displays of impunity.’ [The Guardian, 10/1/19]
White House Lawyers Repeatedly Prevented Former Trump Administration Officials From Answering Subpoenas At The Instruction Of Trump. According to Politico, ‘White House lawyers — at Trump’s direction and with the help of the Justice Department — have repeatedly intervened to prevent former senior officials from answering lawmakers’ questions and providing documents, broadly asserting that those ex-advisers have ‘absolute immunity’ from discussing matters related to their White House service.’ [Politico, 6/4/19]
The White House Instructed Communications Director And Deputy Counsel To Defy Congressional Subpoenas. According to Politico, ‘The White House on Tuesday instructed two former aides to defy congressional subpoenas that sought documents related to allegations that President Donald Trump obstructed justice, in yet another act of defiance toward House Democrats’ investigations […] On Tuesday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone informed the Judiciary Committee that Hicks and Donaldson have been directed not to comply with the subpoenas. Cipollone said Hicks and Donaldson’’do not have the legal right to disclose the White House records to third parties.’ He also said it would be inappropriate to disclose information related to the Mueller probe while the White House continues to negotiate with the committee for access to all of Robert Mueller’s files.’ [Politico, 6/4/19]
¶ Trump Administration Officials Defied Subpoenas
¶ Kellyanne Conaway
Kellyanne Conway Defied A Subpoena From House Oversight And Reform Committee. According to Politico, ‘White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday defied a congressional subpoena, refusing to show up for testimony to the House Oversight and Reform Committee about her violations of the Hatch Act and prompting House Democrats to threaten to hold her in contempt of Congress. In a letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the chairman of the panel, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone asserted the Trump administration’s long-standing view that current and former presidential advisers are ‘absolutely immune’ from congressional testimony, writing: ‘Ms. Conway cannot be compelled to testify before Congress with respect to matters related to her service as a senior adviser to the president.’’ [Politico, 7/15/19
¶ Don McGahn
Don McGahn Blew Off Congressional Subpoena After Being Instructed By White House Lawyers To Do So At The Behest Of Trump. According to Politico, ‘White House lawyers — at Trump’s direction and with the help of the Justice Department — have repeatedly intervened to prevent former senior officials from answering lawmakers’ questions and providing documents, broadly asserting that those ex-advisers have ‘absolute immunity’ from discussing matters related to their White House service […] McGahn blew off a subpoena in May, depriving the Judiciary Committee, at least for now, of potentially bombshell testimony about Trump’s efforts to thwart the Mueller probe.’ [Politico, 6/4/19]
¶ Rudy Giuliani Announced He Would Defy Subpoenas
Giuliani’s Attorney Sent Letter To House Saying He Would Not Comply With Subpoenas. According to CNN, ‘Rudy Giuliani will defy House Democrats’ impeachment subpoena, a letter his attorney sent to Congress on Tuesday said. Jon Sale, Giuliani’s attorney sent a letter to Congress informing them that Giuliani will not be providing documents that were requested by subpoena.’ [CNN, 10/15/19]
¶ Mike Pence’s Office Announced He Would Not Provide Requested Documents
Vice President’s Office Said It Would Not Provide Requested Documents To A ‘Self-Proclaimed Impeachment Inquiry.’ According to NBC News, ‘Vice President Mike Pence’s office said Tuesday it will not comply with a request from the House to turn over documents related to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. In a letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees, Pence counsel Matthew Morgan called the request part of a ‘self-proclaimed impeachment inquiry,’ noting that the House of Representatives has not yet taken a vote to open the inquiry and asserting that the request was part of a process that ‘calls into question your commitment to fundamental fairness and due process rights.’’ [NBC News, 10/15/19]
¶ Trump’s Budget Office Stated It Would Not Comply With Impeachment Inquiry Subpoenas
Office Of Management And Budget Acting Director Russ Vought Stated The Agency Will Not Comply With House Impeachment Inquiry Subpoenas. According to New York Times, ‘The White House budget office will not comply with a congressional subpoena for documents relating to Ukraine issued as part of the impeachment probe launched by Democratic lawmakers, the head of the office said on Wednesday. ‘We will not be participating in a sham process designed to re-litigate the last election,’ Russ Vought, the Office of Management and Budget’s acting head, said in an interview with Fox News Channel.’ [New York Times, 10/9/19]
¶ Defense Department Refused To Comply With Subpoenas.
Pentagon, Said It Was Working To Identify Responsive Documents, But That It Would Not Comply With Subpoena.s According to The Hill,‘The Pentagon said in a letter to the three committee leaders that it has taken steps to identify and preserve potentially relevant documents, but that the subpoena ‘raises a number of legal and practical concerns’ and the department would not comply ‘at this time.’’ [The Hill, 10/15/19]
¶ Energy Secretary Rick Perry Announced He Would Not Comply With Subpoena
Department Of Energy Under Perry Denied Subpoena From House On Grounds That It Had Not Voted To Open An Impeachment Inquiry And That Information Requested Was Protected By Executive Privilege. According to Politico, ‘Energy Secretary Rick Perry is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking a host of records related to his actions in Ukraine at the heart of Congress’ ongoing impeachment inquiry. Perry becomes the latest official in President Donald Trump’s administration to refuse to turn over documents, heightening the stakes for the Energy chief who announced his intention to resign from the administration earlier this week. In a letter to the committees Friday, a senior DOE official reiterated the White House’s objection to the impeachment probe as illegitimate because the House has not formally voted on a resolution to open an inquiry. ‘Even if the inquiry was validly authorized, much of the information sought in the subpoena appears to consist of confidential Executive Branch communications that are potentially protected by executive privilege and would require careful review to ensure that no such information is improperly disclosed,’ wrote Melissa Burnison, assistant Energy secretary for congressional and intergovernmental affairs.’ [Politico. 10/18/19]
¶ Trump Stonewalled Impeachment Investigation With Help From DOJ
The Department Of Justice Secretly Blessed Trump’s Decision To Stonewall Democratic-Led House Over Impeachment. According to Politico, “The Justice Department secretly blessed President Donald Trump’s decision to stonewall the Democratic-led House over impeachment last year, the president’s legal team disclosed Monday. The legal brief submitted to the Senate as part of Trump’s defense includes an opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information before lawmakers passed a formal impeachment resolution on October 31. ‘We conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s sole power of impeachment,’ Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote in the detailed legal rationale. The opinion was officially dated Sunday and released by the Justice Department on its website Monday, timing that appeared to dovetail with a Senate-set noon, holiday deadline for Trump’s first substantive brief in the impeachment trial. Trump’s lawyers argue that one reason he is not guilty of obstructing Congressional inquiries — the thrust of one of the articles of impeachment he faces — is because his instructions to his appointees to defy lawmakers’ subpoenas followed legal advice from DOJ.” [Politico, 1/21/20]
¶ White House BLocked Bolton Testimony During Impeachment
On Friday, Trump Indicated He Would Block Former National Security Adviser John Bolton From Testifying In The Senate Impeachment Trial ‘For The Sake Of The Office.’ According to the Hill, “President Trump on Friday indicated that he would block former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in the Senate’s impeachment trial, arguing that allowing him to do so would undermine his office's authority. ‘I think you have to for the sake of the office,’ Trump told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham when asked if he would use executive privilege to block testimony from Bolton. ‘Especially a national security adviser,’ he added. ‘You can’t have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China and North Korea — everything. We just can’t do that.’” [Hill, 1/11/20]
¶ White House Tried To Block Bolton’s Book That Had Revelations About Trump Tying Aid To Ukraine To Inquiries Against His Political Rivals
In An Unreleased Manuscript Of His Book, Former National Security Advisor John Bolton Stated That Trump Tied Ukraine Aid To The Inquiries He Sought Against His Political Rivals. According to the New York Times, “President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton. The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.” [New York Times, 1/26/20]
The White House Issued A Formal Threat To Former National Security Advisor John Bolton To Keep Him From Publishing His Book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.” According to CNN, “The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, ‘The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,’ sources familiar with the matter tell CNN. In a letter to Bolton's lawyer, a top official at the National Security Council wrote the unpublished manuscript of Bolton's book ‘appears to contain significant amounts of classified information’ and couldn't be published as written The letter, which is dated January 23, said some of the information was classified at the ‘top secret’ level, meaning it ‘reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security.’ ‘The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,’ the letter read.” [CNN, 1/29/20]
¶ Multiple States Changed Republican Primary Rules To Ease Trump’s Path To Re-Election And Prevent Potential Embarrassment
¶ 10 States Canceled Republican Primary GIving Delegates To Trump with NO Election
New York Cancelled Republican Primary After No Other Candidates Qualified For The Ballot. According to Politico, “New York will not hold a Republican presidential primary this year, guaranteeing that President Donald Trump will win all of the state’s delegates. Nobody besides Trump qualified to appear on the ballot, and primaries in New York are held only if multiple candidates qualify.” [Politico, 3/3/20]
Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina, and Wisconsin Canceled Republican Primaries. According to Newsweek, “On Tuesday, Wisconsin became the latest state to block the two candidates from appearing on the primary ballot. So far at least nine states—Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina and Wisconsin—have essentially decided to give their delegates to Trump without a contest.” [Newsweek, 1/8/20]
¶ Rhode Island Republican Primary Switched To “Winner-Take-All” At Request Of Trump Campaign
Rhode Island Switched Republican Primary To “Winner-Take-All” To Boost Trump’s Reelect. According to AP News, “The Rhode Island Republican party is changing its primary election process in an effort to boost President Donald Trump’s re-election bid. The Providence Journal reports the state GOP voted Thursday to switch to a ‘winner-take-all’ approach in its local primary. Any candidate claiming more than 50% of the state’s presidential primary vote will now earn all 19 of Rhode Island’s delegates to the 2020 Republican National Convention. Delegates and alternates were previously distributed proportionally among candidates receiving more than 20% of vote.” [AP News, 9/20/19]
¶ The Trump Campaign Asked State Parties To Switch To Winner-Take-All To Reduce Dissent At Convention
The Trump Campaign Asked State Parties To Switch To Winner-Take-All To Reduce Dissent At Convention. According to AP News, “The Rhode Island Republican party is changing its primary election process in an effort to boost President Donald Trump’s re-election bid. The Providence Journal reports the state GOP voted Thursday to switch to a ‘winner-take-all’ approach in its local primary […] The Trump campaign has urged state Republican parties to make the switch to avoid dissent at the convention.” [AP News, 9/20/19]
¶ Critics Argued Canceled Primaries Indicated Trump “Takeover” Of Party And An Attempt To Protect From “Embarrass[ment]”
Politico: Canceled Primaries Representative Of Trump’s Takeover Of The Republican Party And The Extent His Allies Would Protect Him From “Embarrass[ment].” According to Politico, “Republican parties in South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas are expected to finalize the cancellations in meetings this weekend, according to three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans. The moves are the latest illustration of Trump’s takeover of the entire Republican Party apparatus. They underscore the extent to which his allies are determined to snuff out any potential nuisance en route to his renomination — or even to deny Republican critics a platform to embarrass him.” [Politico, 9/6/19]
Trump’s Republican Challengers Claimed GOP Leaders Were Protecting Trump By Not Holding Primaries. According to Newsweek, “Both Walsh and Weld slammed the decision to cancel primaries as undemocratic and accused GOP leaders of simply acting as the president’s defenders. ‘I get that impeachment is a big story, and it should be; and what is going on in Iran right now is a big story. This should be a big story too though. It’s unprecedented. It’s being done to protect Trump, period,’ Walsh told Newsweek on Wednesday.” [Newsweek, 1/8/20]
Trump’s Republican Challengers Argued The Canceled Primaries Indicated The Republican Party Stood For “Nothing But Reelection.” According to Fortune, “2020 Republican Trump challenger Bill Weld, former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh, and former South Carolina congressman Mark Sanford argued in a joint op-ed last month that such a move flies in the face of American values—despite being a historically common practice. ‘If a party stands for nothing but reelection, it indeed stands for nothing,’ they wrote. ‘Our next nominee must compete in the marketplace of ideas, values and leadership.’” [Fortune, 10/10/19]
Trump’s Republican Challengers Complained That GOP Leaders Were Worried How Trump Would Preform In Primary. According to Newsweek, “But Walsh and Weld argue that cancelling primaries may be a sign that GOP leaders are worried about how Trump will perform in the 2020 election. ‘We’re told all the time that Donald Trump is really strong and he’s a really popular president among Republicans. Well if that’s true, why are states cancelling primaries?’ Walsh said. ‘I think it’s clear evidence that state parties…don’t want anybody on the ballot because they are worried about how weak Trump might be.’ Weld added: ‘If Donald Trump is as beloved as he claims, what are they afraid of?’” [Newsweek, 1/8/20]
¶ Trump’s White House Paralleled Authoritarian Regimes By Appointing Jared And Ivanka To The White House
¶ Trump Appointed His Daughter And Son-In-Law To White House Positions
January 2017: Jared Kushner Named Senior White House Advisor. According to The New York Times, “ared Kushner will become a senior White House adviser to his father-in-law, Donald J. Trump, cementing the New York real estate executive’s role as a powerful and at times decisive influence on the president-elect.” [New York Times, 1/9/17]
March 2017: Ivanka Trump Given Official White House Role As “Advisor” To The President. According to CNN, “Ivanka Trump is changing course and will become a government employee in the coming days, a White House official told CNN Wednesday. President Donald Trump's eldest daughter will be an unpaid employee working in the West Wing. 'I have heard the concerns some have with my advising the President in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with all ethics rules, and I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees,' Ivanka Trump said in a statement. 'Throughout this process I have been working closely and in good faith with the White House counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role.' […] Now, Ivanka Trump will be an ‘adviser’ to the President, and will file her own Form 278, which means she is legally bound by the ethics rules.” [CNN, 3/29/17]
Trump Considered Naming Ivanka As Head Of World Bank Or UN Ambassador. According to The Atlantic, “‘The ‘millions of jobs’ claim is not true. (Through Ivanka’s work as an adviser to the president, companies such as Walmart and IBM have pledged to provide re-skilling opportunities over the next five years, mainly to people with jobs already.) But it’s true that when jobs open up in the Trump administration—a frequent occurrence—Ivanka is at the top of her father’s mind. ‘She’s a natural diplomat,’ Trump said. ‘She would’ve been great at the United Nations, as an example.’ I asked why he didn’t nominate her. ‘If I did, they’d say nepotism, when it would’ve had nothing to do with nepotism. But she would’ve been incredible.’ Warming to the subject, he said, ‘I even thought of Ivanka for the World Bank … She would’ve been great at that because she’s very good with numbers.’” [Atlantic, 4/12/19]
¶ Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute Prohibited Officials, Including Presidents, From hiring Family Members To Their Agency
Anti-Nepotism Statute Stated No Public Official Could Appoint A Relative To Position In Any Agency They Served In Or Had Jurisdiction Over. According to statute, “A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.” [5 U.S.C. § 3110, accessed 3/4/20]
- The President Was Included As A “Public Official” In Anti-Nepotism Statute. According to statute, “’public official’ means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress), a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency;” [5 U.S.C. § 3110, accessed 3/4/20]
- Daughter And Son-In-Law Were Included As A Relative In Anti-Nepotism Statute. According to statute, “‘relative‘ means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.” [5 U.S.C. § 3110, accessed 3/4/20]
¶ OLC Released Opinion White House Employees Were Exempt From Statute On Trump’s First Day In Office
OLC Argued Presidential Appointments To The White Office Were Exempt From Anti-Nepotism Statute. According to opinion, “You have asked whether section 3110 of title 5, U.S. Code, which forbids a public official from appointing a relative “to a civilian position in the agency . . . over which [the official] exercises jurisdiction or control,” bars the President from appointing his son-in-law to a position in the White House Office, where the President’s immediate personal staff of advisors serve. We conclude that section 3110 does not bar this appointment because the President’s special hiring authority in 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) exempts positions in the White House Office from section 3110.” [Application of the Anti-Nepotism Statute to a Presidential Appointment in the White House Office, 1/20/17]
OLC Cited US Statute That Authorized The President To Appoint White House Staff “Without Regard To Any Other Provision Of Law Regulating The Employment Or Compensation Of Persons In The Government Service.” According to statute, “Subject to the provisons [1] of paragraph (2) of this subsection, the President is authorized to appoint and fix the pay of employees in the White House Office without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the Government service. Employees so appointed shall perform such official duties as the President may prescribe.” [3 U.S. Code § 105, accessed 3/4/20]
¶ Critics Compared Trump’s White House Nepotism To Authoritarian Regimes, Monarchies, And Real Estate Empires
WaPo: Authoritarians Stay In Power By Institutionalizing Their Regime By Appointing Family Members To Top Jobs. According to The Washington Post, “There’s another, longer-term danger, too. In some countries, leaders use nepotism to appoint their children and spouses to top jobs or as successors. In those cases, the regime itself becomes institutionalized, replacing the regulations and rules. In those cases, he explained, ‘the incentives and temptations for corruption become pervasive.’ In authoritarian regimes, that allows a corrupt family to stay in power for years or decades. In democracies, Carey wrote, ‘elected leaders rotate but the deterioration of the rule of law erodes steadily and corruption consequently increases steadily.’” [Washington Post, 7/26/17]
WaPo: “The Trump Presidency May Be Akin To A Medieval Monarchy.” According to The Washington Post, “The U.S. presidency has always been prone to sultanistic tendencies, but under a Trump presidency what were once isolated incidents have predictably become a way of governing. When the closest advisers, both institutional (like Ivanka and Kushner) and informal (in the case of his two adult sons), are dominated by family members, the decision-making process will not only be erratic and possibly influenced by private family interests but also tend to ignore legal procedures that have also met the test of time. Instead of a ‘team of rivals’ under the rule of law, the Trump presidency may be akin to a medieval monarchy, with decisions made by court politics, not legal procedures.” [Washington Post, 7/26/17]
NYT: Trump “Adopt[ed] The Management Style Of A New York Real Estate Empire, With Family At The Pinnacle.” According to The New York Times, “Other presidents configured their White House hierarchies to mirror experiences in statehouses, on campaigns or at the heads of armies. Mr. Trump intends to adopt the management style of a New York real estate empire, with family at the pinnacle and staff members, however trusted or talented, somewhere below.” [New York Times, 1/9/17]
WaPo: U.S. Institutions To Protect The Rule Of Law Could Be Disrupted By Family Members Serving To Protect Their Boss Rather Than Their Fellow Citizens. According to The Washington Post, “But that misses a bigger point. Kushner’s very presence points to what critics call a troubling trend in the Trump administration: a tendency to rely on friends and family for policy advice and action. Political scientists who study the world have a term for this: sultanism, or nepotism. And they say it’s bad not just because it’s unfair but also because nepotism leads to corruption and the erosion of the rule of law. Here’s why: In a robust, well-functioning democracy, there are many checks against the abuse of power. There are institutions that establish procedures to regulate decision-making and set limits. These institutions are run by people loyal not to any particular leader, but rather to the rule of law itself. They understand, in theory, that their job is to protect the citizens and the constitution, not their bosses.” [Washington Post, 7/26/17]
¶ Trump Threatened To Withhold Federal Money Or Use Federal Agencies To Retaliate Against States That Opposed Him
¶ Trump Was “Openly Hostile” TO California And Its Democratic Leaders Who Opposed HIm
Politico: California—the World’s Fifth Largest Economy—Flourished While Directly Opposing Trump’s Administration. According to Politico, “California is now the world’s fifth-largest economy, up from eighth a decade ago. […] In general, California is flourishing while pursuing the exact opposite of the policies Trump is pursuing in Washington. And it has sued the Trump administration dozens of times, not only taking the lead on the new 16-state lawsuit against the president’s emergency wall declaration, but fighting for loan forgiveness for students defrauded by for-profit schools, net neutrality and Obamacare’s guarantees of free birth control, while fighting to stop the ban on travel from several Muslim countries, the ban on transgender service members, and a slew of environmental rollbacks.” [Politico, 2/21/19]
Politico: Trump “Loves Bashing California” And Has Been “Openly Hostile To It.” According to Politico, “president Donald Trump loves bashing California—its ‘ridiculous’ sanctuary cities, its ‘gross mismanagement’ of its forests, even the ‘disgusting’ streets of San Francisco. […] California does feel like a potential harbinger of a more multicultural, more progressive American future, which may be one reason Trump is so openly hostile to it, even threatening to withhold aid from its wildfire victims” [Politico, 2/21/19]
Politico: California Leaders Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Walters, And Kamala Harris Have Drawn Trump’s Ire. According to Politico, “He also enjoys slagging California liberals, like House Intelligence Committee Chair ‘Liddle’ Adam Schiff, House Financial Services Committee Chair ‘Low IQ’ Maxine Waters, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who ‘has behaved so irrationally & gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat.’ On Wednesday, after Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom decided to scale back the state’s troubled high-speed rail project, the president gleefully mocked it as a green fiasco: ‘Send the Federal Government back the Billions of Dollars WASTED!’ Now that progressive Democrats are pushing for a California-style Green New Deal to fight climate change, and progressive California Senator Kamala Harris has become a front-runner for the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump, the president’s allies have begun framing 2020 as a last stand against the hippie-lefty Californication of America.” [Politico, 2/21/19]
¶ California AG Sued Trump Over A Dozen Times
California Has Sued The Trump Administration Over A Dozen Times. According to Politico, “In general, California is flourishing while pursuing the exact opposite of the policies Trump is pursuing in Washington. And it has sued the Trump administration dozens of times, not only taking the lead on the new 16-state lawsuit against the president’s emergency wall declaration, but fighting for loan forgiveness for students defrauded by for-profit schools, net neutrality and Obamacare’s guarantees of free birth control, while fighting to stop the ban on travel from several Muslim countries, the ban on transgender service members, and a slew of environmental rollbacks.” [Politico, 2/21/19]
¶ Trump Threatened To Withhold FEMA Aid From California During Wildfires
November 2019: Trump Threatened To Withhold Federal Aid To Fight Fires In California. According to tweets, “The Governor of California, @GavinNewsom , has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must “clean” his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers..... ..Every year, as the fire’s rage & California burns, it is the same thing-and then he comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No more. Get your act together Governor. You don’t see close to the level of burn in other states...But our teams are working well together in..... ....putting these massive, and many, fires out. Great firefighters! Also, open up the ridiculously closed water lanes coming down from the North. Don’t pour it out into the Pacific Ocean. Should be done immediately. California desperately needs water, and you can have it now!” [Twitter, 11/3/19]
January 2019: Trump Threatened To Withhold Federal Aid To Fight Fires In California. According to tweet, “Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forest fires that, with proper Forest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!” [Twitter.com, 1/9/19]
¶ Trump Threatened To Weaponize The EPA Against California
Trump’ EPA Threatened To Withhold Federal Highway Funds From California Prompting Officials To Call For Investigation Into “Inappropriate Threat Of Use Of EPA Authority.” According to CNN, “Nearly 600 former Environmental Protection Agency officials are calling on Congress to investigate the Trump administration’s ‘inappropriate threat of use of EPA authority’ against the state of California over recent environmental policies. Five hundred ninety-three former officials who worked under Republican and Democratic administrations signed a letter sent to the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Thursday requesting an investigation into EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s threat to withhold federal highway funds from the state. They also want an investigation into Wheeler’s demand that the state take action regarding its homelessness crisis. The officials write in the letter that both actions ‘were intended as retaliation for the state’s failure to support President Trump’s political agenda.’ Asked for comment, EPA spokesman Michael Abboud responded: ‘Highlighting that California has the worst air quality in the nation along with other serious environmental problems is not a political issue. ... EPA expects California leaders to share its concern for the protection of public health.’” [CNN, 10/10/19]
Trump Threatened San Francisco With EPA Action Because Of Homeless Issue. According to NBC News, “President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to have the Environmental Protection Agency issue a ‘notice’ to San Francisco over the city's homeless issue, comments that were criticized by local officials. From Air Force One, Trump, who had been in California for a two-day fundraising trip, blamed the homeless population for environmental issues. ‘There’s tremendous pollution being put into the ocean,’ he said, noting ‘there are needles, there are other things.’ ‘We’re going to be giving San Francisco — they’re in total violation — we’re going to be giving them the notice very soon,’ Trump said. ‘The EPA is going to be putting out a notice and you know they’re in serious violation and this is environmental, very environmental,’ Trump said. ‘And they have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell.’ ” [NBC News, 9/19/19]
¶ Trump Suspended Global Entry In New York, A State With Several Lawsuits That targeted Trump Personally
¶ Trump Suspended Global Entry Program For New Yorkers
The Department Of Homeland Security Suspended Global Entry, Trusted Traveler Programs For New York Residents In Response To The State’s Sanctuary Law. According to Fox News, “Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News' ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ Wednesday that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents -- a dramatic move in response to the liberal state's recently enacted sanctuary ‘Green Light Law.’ The sweeping order came a day after President Trump, in his State of the Union address, condemned left-wing states and local governments that ‘release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public,’ and called on Congress to pass a law establishing civil liability for sanctuary cities. In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited state DMVs from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” [Fox News, 2/5/20]
WaPo Said Trump’s Action “Smacks Of Political Retribution.” According to The Washington Post, “In a move that smacks of political retribution, Department of Homeland Security officials last week announced that, starting immediately, New Yorkers will no longer be able to enroll or reenroll in Global Entry or similar programs. Some 175,000 New Yorkers would be expelled from the program by the end of this year; 80,000 with pending applications are out of luck.” [Washington Post, 2/14/20]
¶ Trump Feuded With New York Over The State’s Drivers License Law
2019: New York Passed Law That Allowed Undocumented Immigrants To Get A Driver’s License And Blocked NY DMV From Sharing Records With Federal Agencies. According to The Washington Post, “The stated reason for the rule is New York’s Green Light Law, signed last year by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), which allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses and blocks New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles from sharing its records with federal immigration agencies unless so ordered by a federal court. More than a dozen other states, plus the District of Columbia, grant driving privileges without regard to immigration status, but New York is the first to make its DMV database off-limits to immigration agents.” [Washington Post, 2/14/20]
DHS Secretary Chad Wolf Claimed The Law Jeopardized National Security And Trump Said These Types Of Laws Caused A “Complete Breakdown Of Law & Order In New York City.” According to The Washington Post, “That’s the rub for acting homeland security secretary Chad Wolf, who said the law jeopardizes national security. However, Mr. Wolf, who offered no example of unique data maintained by New York’s DMV and vital to national security, wears his bias on his sleeve. Last month, he tweeted that so-called sanctuary laws had caused a ‘complete breakdown of law & order in New York City.’ In fact, major crimes in the city have dropped more than 80 percent over three decades, and the major felony rate fell again last year to a record low, despite an increase in murders. Mr. Wolf says that without access to New York’s DMV database, immigration enforcement agencies can’t see records they need to ‘build cases and . . . investigat[e] criminal networks.’” [Washington Post, 2/14/20]
¶ Trump Was Subject To Lawsuits And Battles With Democratic Politicians In New York
Trump: “I Have Been Treated Very Badly By The Political Leaders Of Both The City And State. Few Have Been Treated Worse.” According to tweets, “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House, is the place I have come to love and will stay for, hopefully, another 5 years as we MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, but my family and I will be making Palm Beach, Florida, our Permanent Residence. I cherish New York, and the people of.........New York, and always will, but unfortunately, despite the fact that I pay millions of dollars in city, state and local taxes each year, I have been treated very badly by the political leaders of both the city and state. Few have been treated worse. I hated having to make........this decision, but in the end it will be best for all concerned. As President, I will always be there to help New York and the great people of New York. It will always have a special place in my heart!” [Twitter.com, 10/31/19]
¶ New York AG Successfully Sued Donald Trump For Misusing Charity Funds
New York State Judge Ruled Donald Trump Must Pay $2 Million For Improperly Using Charity Funds. According to NBC News, “President Donald Trump must pay a $2 million judgment for improperly using his Trump Foundation charity to further his 2016 presidential campaign, a New York state judge ruled Thursday. The order appears to bring to an end the New York attorney general’s lawsuit against the president and three of his oldest children over the now-shuttered foundation, which the attorney general said had engaged in repeated wrongdoing.” [NBC News, 11/7/19]
NY AG Has Open Investigation Into Eric Trump Foundation
June 2018: NY AG Announced Investigation Into The Eric Trump Foundation Was Ongoing. According to City & State, “With regards to any future action against Trump family charities or individuals, Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, wrote in an email, ‘The Eric Trump Foundation investigation is ongoing. Our jurisdiction vis-a-vis charities is only civil. As for any future action, we’re going to decline to comment / speculate.’” [City & State, 6/14/18]
¶ Manhattan DA Sued Trump For His Tax Returns
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Sued Donald Trump For 8 Years Of Business And Personal Tax Returns. According to The New York Times, “One of the cases concerned a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat. It sought eight years of business and personal tax records in connection with an investigation of the role that Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization played in hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 election.” [New York Times, 12/13/19]
¶ Trump Feuded With New York Rep. Nadler Who Was A Leader In Impeachment Inquiry
Trump Feuded With New York Rep. Nadler Over Decades Old Real Estate Battles And Current Impeachment Proceedings. According to The Washington Post, “Assembling a group of House Republicans at the White House to talk trade last month, President Trump suddenly launched into a tirade about the congressman leading an extensive investigation into his presidency:his New York antagonist, Rep. Jerrold Nadler. […] Trump and Nadler are currently the main foes in a constitutional clash over executive power, as Nadler aggressively moves to investigate the president’s conduct and weighs whether to hold impeachment proceedings. But Trump’s jabs at Nadler were a fresh reminder that the animosity between the two native New Yorkers is personal as well as political — rooted in a decades-old fight over a tract of New York City real estate.” [Washington Post, 4/8/19]
¶ Trump Attacked Independent Judiciary
¶ Trump Attacked Judges Who Ruled Against His Wishes
Trump Denounced Judges Who Ruled Against His Policy Efforts And Him Personally. According to The Washington Post, “Trump has denounced judges who have halted some of his administration’s most hotly debated policies, including his threats to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities and his attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. The president also has attacked judges over rulings that negatively affect him personally.” [Washington Post, 11/8/19]
Trump Criticized Judges And Decisions He Disliked As “Tyranny” “Disgraceful” “Complete And Total Disaster[s]” Among Others. According to The Washington Post, “Trump has also referred to decisions he dislikes as the ‘tyranny of the judiciary’ and a ‘gift to the criminal and cartel element in our country,’ Friedman noted. He listed the ways Trump has denigrated judges: ‘so-called judge,’ ‘disgraceful’ and ‘political,’ ‘a complete and total disaster.’’ [Washington Post, 11/8/19]
¶ Trump Called Judge Curiel, Who Presided Over Trump University Fraud Case, A “Hater” And Said He Would Be Biased Because Of His Ethnicity
Trump Attacked U.S. District Judge Curiel Who Presided Over The Trump University Fraud Case Saying “I Have A Judge Who Is A Hater Of Donald Trump” And Accused Him Of Bias Because Of His Ethnicity. According to The Washington Post, “Trump also attacked U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, when the federal jurist from the Southern District of California was assigned to preside over a fraud case involving Trump University, a real estate seminar program. Trump suggested Curiel, an appointee of President Barack Obama, could not remain impartial in the case because of his Mexican heritage, despite the fact that the federal judge was born in Indiana and the case had nothing to do with immigration or foreign affairs. Trump ultimately settled the suit, which alleged the seminars used false advertising to ensnare attendees, for $25 million. ‘I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump,’ the then-candidate said in May 2016, describing Curiel and accusing him of bias because of his ethnicity. Later, Curiel was assigned to rule on Trump’s plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and ruled in the president’s favor.” [Washington Post, 11/8/19]
¶ Trump Called Ruling By An Obama Appointee Against His Asylum Regulations “Not Law”
Trump Said Tigar’s Decision To Stop Trump’s Asylum Regulations “Not Law” Because “This Was An Obama Judge.” According to The Atlantic, “A couple of days before, a federal district judge in California had temporarily halted new regulations on applications for asylum by foreigners entering the United States. Judge Jon S. Tigar held that the restrictions contravened the actual requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and thus could not go into effect. ‘That’s not law,’ President Donald Trump said of Tigar’s decision. ‘This was an Obama judge.’” [Atlantic, 4/4/19]
¶ Trump Said Sotomayor And Ginsburg Would Be Biased Against Him And Should Recuse Themselves
Trump Said Sotomayor And Ginsburg Should Recuse Themselves From “Trump Or Trump-Related” Cases. According to The Atlantic, “But in response, Trump carried his war on the judiciary to the Supreme Court itself: Sotomayor ‘never criticized Justice Ginsberg [sic] when she called me a ‘faker’. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related matters! While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!’ In later remarks, he added: ‘I just don’t know how they can not recuse themselves for anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related.’” [Atlantic, 3/4/20]
¶ Trump Called Decision Not To Sentence Bergdahl A “Disgrace”
Trump Railed Against A Judge’s Decision To Not Imprison Bowe Bergdahl. According to The Washington Post, “In 2017, Trump tweeted how a judge’s decision not to imprison Bowe Bergdahl, an Army sergeant who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after walking away from his battalion in Afghanistan, was a ‘total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.’ On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump had suggested Bergdahl was a ‘dirty rotten traitor‘ who should be sentenced to death.’ [Washington Post, 11/8/19]
- Trump Called The Ruling A “Disgrace.” According to tweet, “The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.” [Twitter.com, 11/3/17]
¶ Trump Called The 9th Circuit “A Shame” And “Absolutely” Considered Breaking It Up
Trump Said He Would “Absolutely” Consider Breaking Up The 9th Circuit Appeals And Complained That Everyone Immediately Goes There Because “They That’s Like, Semi-Automatic.” According to The Washington Examiner, “President Trump said Wednesday that he has ‘absolutely’ considered proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have blocked two of his executive actions. ‘Absolutely, I have,’ Trump said of considering 9th Circuit breakup proposals during a far-ranging interview with the Washington Examiner at the White House. ‘There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It’s outrageous.’ ‘Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that’s like, semi-automatic,’ Trump said.” [Washington Examiner, 4/26/17]
Trump Criticized The Practice Of “Judge Shopping” And Said What Was “Going On In The 9th Circuit [Was] A Shame.” According to The Washington Examiner, “Trump said Wednesday that opponents of his policies have engaged in ‘judge shopping’ in their efforts to find a sympathetic judicial platform for their partisan objections. ‘You see judge shopping, or what’s gone on with these people, they immediately run to the 9th Circuit,’ Trump said. ‘It’s got close to an 80 percent reversal period, and what’s going on in the 9th Circuit is a shame.’ ” [Washington Examiner, 4/26/17]
¶ Trump Said Judges He Appointed Would Rule In His Favor
Trump Said Judges He Appointed Would Be “My Judges” And Implied He Believed They Would Decide In His Favor. According to The Washington Post, “The federal judge also recalled a political promise Trump made to voters that he said threatens the independence of the judicial branch: ‘If it’s my judges,’ Friedman recounted Trump saying during his campaign in June 2016, ‘you know how they’re going to decide.’’ [Washington Post, 11/8/19]
Trump Believed His Judicial Appointees Will Rule In His Favor Saying They Were “My Judges” And He Would “Know How They’re Gonna Decide.” According to The Washington Post, “As president, however, Trump seems taken with the idea that the judges he has appointed will not only guarantee legal victory but will be the ultimate safeguard of his actions and policies. From the start of his 2016 campaign, Trump made clear that he saw the courts not as an independent branch of government, but as one more weapon in a president’s arsenal. ‘We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,’ he told Breitbart News in June 2016. ‘If it’s my judges, you know how they’re gonna decide,’ Trump told an evangelical Christian audience a week later, answering a question about Second Amendment gun rights. ” [Washington Post, 4/26/19]
¶ Trump Intervened In Stone Trial
¶ Trump Ally Roger Stone Sentenced To Over Three Years In Prison
Trump Ally Roger Stone Sentenced To Over Three Years In Prison; Trump Raised Questioned About Whether He Will Grant Clemency To His Longtime Political Confidant. According to Politico, “Roger Stone was sentenced Thursday to just more than three years in prison, a decision that raises immediate questions about whether President Donald Trump will pardon his longtime political confidant for what the president has decried as a miscarriage of justice […] Stone’s case has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about political meddling in high-profile legal cases. Trump has been using his Twitter bully pulpit to repeatedly harangue the Justice Department over its handling of the case, sparking concerns that the president influenced Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to overrule his own prosecutors and request a lower sentence for Stone — a charge Barr denies. The situation has left many in the legal world wondering whether Trump’s refusal to scale back his public punditry, despite Barr’s own public pleas, could lead the attorney general to resign. Trump didn't relent after the sentencing, arguing that Stone's jury was ‘tainted’ with anti-Trump bias due to the political affiliation of some jurors. Trump also laid out, for the first time, his thinking on a potential pardon for Stone.” [Politico, 2/20/20]
¶ Trump Attacked Judge Amy Berman Jackson Ahead Of Stone’s Sentencing
Trump Targeted Judge Amy Berman Jackson Ahead Of Roger Stone’s Sentencing. According to the Washington Post, “But perhaps most surprising was Trump’s decision to target U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson — who will determine Stone’s fate when he appears in her courtroom next Thursday. It was not the first time Trump had gone after a federal judge or questioned the judiciary, but Tuesday’s attack was nevertheless vexing to current and former judges as Jackson prepares to decide whether to send the president’s friend to prison — and for how long […] Hours later, Trump targeted Jackson for her treatment of another ally of his, Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, and suggested that the judge had been soft on Clinton. ‘Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!’ the president wrote, sharing a tweet that named Jackson as the judge who sentenced Manafort […] Jackson, 65, has played a central role in cases involving Trump associates and Mueller’s Russia investigation. She sentenced Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, in December. She presided over the trial of Gregory B. Craig, a Democratic former White House counsel who was charged in a spinoff from the Mueller probe and was acquitted in September.” [Washington Post, 2/12/20]
¶ Justice Department Planned To Undercut Prosecutors’ Sentencing Recommendation For Roger Stone
The Justice Department Signaled That It Planned To Undercut Prosecutors’ Sentencing Recommendation For Roger Stone, Trump’s Long Time Friend, Calling The Sentence ‘Excessive And Disproportionate.’ According to Washington Post, “The cascade of controversy began Monday, when career prosecutors handling the case recommended that a judge sentence Stone — convicted in November of obstructing Congress and witness tampering — to between seven and nine years in federal prison. Stone has been a friend and adviser to Trump since the 1980s and was a key figure in his 2016 campaign, working to discover damaging information on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. His was the last conviction secured by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The president suggested angrily on Twitter that Stone deserved more-lenient treatment. ‘This is a horrible and very unfair situation,’ Trump wrote early Tuesday. ‘The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!’ Hours later, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the agency’s leadership was ‘shocked’ by the recommendation of a seven-to-nine-year sentence and would soon revise it. ‘That recommendation is not what had been briefed to the department,’ the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive case. ‘The department finds the recommendation extreme and excessive and disproportionate to Stone’s offenses.’” [Washington Post, 2/11/20]
¶ All Four Prosecutors Handling The Case Against Stone Withdrew From The Legal Proceedings
All Four Prosecutors Handling The Case Against Stone Withdrew From The Legal Proceedings, One Quitting His Job Entirely, After The DOJ Signaled It Would Undercut Their Sentencing Recommendation. According to the Washington Post, “All four career prosecutors handling the case against Roger Stone withdrew from the legal proceedings Tuesday — and one quit his job entirely — after the Justice Department signaled it planned to undercut their sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend and confidant. The sudden and dramatic moves came after prosecutors and their superiors had argued for days over the appropriate penalty for Stone, and exposed what some career Justice Department employees say is a continuing pattern of the historically independent law enforcement institution being bent to Trump’s political will […] Jonathan Kravis, one of the prosecutors on the Stone case, wrote in a court filing that he had resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney, leaving government altogether. Three others — Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando — filed notices with the judge saying ‘please notice the withdrawal’ from the case.” [Washington Post, 2/11/20]
¶ Critics Said Trump’s Rhetoric Damaged The Independence Of the Judiciary And COmpared To Nazi Germany And KKK
¶ Federico Finchelstein Called Trump’s Attacks Akin To Fascism, Compared It To Nazi Germany
Federico Finchelstein: Trump’s Approach To The Bench Paralleled Fascist Methodology Of Attacking The Judiciary And Allowing The Head Of State To Decide Right And Wrong. According to an opinion by Federico Finchelstein in the Washington Post, “Taken together, Trump’s approach to the judicial system and its verdicts builds on an intellectual tradition rooted in extreme authoritarianism. Indeed, historically fascist leaders depended on destroying legal traditions — while retaining the appearance of a functioning legal system — to create a new dictatorship that eliminated the distinction between the state and civil society. The result? The leader decided right and wrong in the name of the people, ultimately eliminating the role of a free press that could investigate the leader or an independent judiciary that checked and balanced his power. Trump’s numerous efforts to disparage the media, signal support for people convicted of political crimes but who show him loyalty and force personal loyalty from the courts bring him closer to the dangerous intellectual territory of fascism. ” [Washington Post, 2/26/20]
Hitler Was Represented As “The Supreme Judge Of The Nation” And Given Discretionary Power Over The Law As Was Typically The Case In Fascism. According to an opinion by Federico Finchelstein in the Washington Post, “In fascism, the dictator’s discretionary power overrides the rule of law. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler famously represented himself as ‘the supreme judge of the Nation.’ The most important Nazi legal theorist, Carl Schmitt, claimed in 1934 that the Fuhrer was the embodiment of the ‘most authentic jurisdiction.’ Schmitt had careerist and ideological intentions. He wanted to become the ‘crown jurist’ of the Third Reich, and he was willing to go beyond his previous conservative positions and collaborations with earlier German administrations.’ [Washington Post, 2/26/20]
¶ ABA Journal Highlighted Importance Of A Fair And Independent Judiciary
ABA Journal: Founding Fathers Intended A Fair And Independent Court System In Order To Interpret Fairness Over Executive And Legislative Branch. According to ABA Journal, “Historically, the system of checks and balances was first proposed in the Federalist Papers and later implemented with the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. Federalist Paper No. 47, written by James Madison, stated that ‘accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’ The Founding Fathers, well-versed in British history and seeking protection from another ruler who may become too powerful to the detriment of the country, prioritized judicial independence as a fundamental tenet of American democracy. Without a system of fair courts, the citizens could only rely on the executive and legislative branches to create laws without an independent body to interpret their fairness.” [ABA Journal, 6/28/18]
ABA Journal: “A Judiciary Without The Faith Of The Executive Is A Danger To A Free And Open Society.” According to ABA Journal, “A judiciary without the faith of the executive is a danger to a free and open society.” [ABA Journal, 6/28/18]
ABA Journal: Trump’s Attacks On Judiciary Diminished Its Ability To Serve As A Fair And Impartial Body For The People. According to ABA Journal, “Citizens rely equally on each of the three branches of government for the administration of governmental affairs. When citizens lose confidence with the branch of government responsible for interpreting the laws, all of our institutions are diminished. President Trump’s attacks upon judges and judicial decisions undermines the legitimacy of the courts. This diminishes the purpose of having not only a system of checks and balances, but of having a neutral court that can operate independently. Derogatory tweets and criticisms from the executive branch must not be allowed to intimidate the judiciary. For centuries, Americans have relied on fair courts to prevent government overreach and to maintain the constitutional rights of its citizens, regardless of the political motivations of the other two government branches. Allowing the federal courts to serve as an impartial and independent body free of executive interference is crucial to preserving the ideals of the United States of America.” [ABA Journal, 6/28/18]
¶ Federal Judges Rebuked Trump’s Behavior Noting The Damage His Rhetoric Had On Institutions Enumerated In The Constitution
District Judge On Trump: “He Seems To View The Courts And The Justice System As Obstacles To Be Attacked And Undermined, Not As A Coequal Branch To Be Respected.” According to The Washington Post, “U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia said Trump’s rhetoric ‘violates all recognized democratic norms’ during a speech at the annual Judge Thomas A. Flannery Lecture in Washington on Wednesday. ‘We are in unchartered territory,’ said Friedman, 75, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. ‘We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn’t go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms. He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a coequal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.’” [Washington Post, 11/8/19]
Chief Justice Roberts Rebuked Trump’s Remarks About A Judge Who Ruled Against His Asylum Policy And Emphasized The Importance Of An Independent Judiciary. According to The Atlantic, “A couple of days before, a federal district judge in California had temporarily halted new regulations on applications for asylum by foreigners entering the United States. Judge Jon S. Tigar held that the restrictions contravened the actual requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and thus could not go into effect. ‘That’s not law,’ President Donald Trump said of Tigar’s decision. ‘This was an Obama judge.’ Roberts had never shown any interest in taking a public part in America’s partisan wars; nonetheless, in a statement to Mark Sherman of the AP, Roberts contradicted Trump: ‘We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.’’ [Atlantic, 4/4/19]
¶ District Judge Reeves Compared Trump’s Attacks To Klan Tactics
District Judge Carlton Reeves Compared Trump’s Attacks On The Judiciary To Klan Tactics. Buzzfeed, “In a highly unusual public rebuke against President Donald Trump by a sitting member of the federal judiciary, US District Judge Carlton Reeves delivered a speech Thursday calling the Trump administration a ‘great assault on our judiciary’ and comparing the president’s criticism of the judiciary to tactics used by the Ku Klux Klan and segregationists. […] ‘When politicians attack courts as ‘dangerous,’ ‘political,’ and guilty of ‘egregious overreach,’ you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South. When leaders chastise people for merely ‘us[ing] the courts,’ you can hear the Citizens Council, hammering up the names of black petitioners in Yazoo City, [Mississippi],’ Reeves said, quoting Trump. ‘When the powerful accuse courts of ‘open[ing] up our country to potential terrorists,’ you can hear the Southern Manifesto’s authors, smearing the judiciary for simply upholding the rights of black folk. When lawmakers say ‘we should get rid of judges,’ you can hear segregationist senators, writing bills to strip courts of their power.’’ [Buzzfeed, 4/12/19]
¶ Trump Threatened And Punished Political Rivals
¶ Trump Threatened Retribution Against Impeachment Witnesses And Legislators Who Led Impeachment Charge
Trump Promised “Payback” Against Those Who Testified Against Him During Impeachment Trial And Retweeted Calls To Exact Revenge On His Opponents. According to Politico, “The succession of personnel moves came amid a promise of ‘payback’ by White House officials against those who testified or played a role in the impeachment of the president. Trump has spent the two days since his acquittal by the Senate railing against his perceived enemies. He slammed Sens. Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin earlier Friday for their votes to convict him, and he retweeted calls by his allies to exact revenge on his opponents, including the Democratic lawmakers who led the drive against him.” [Politico, 2/7/20]
¶ Trump Threatened To Put The Head Of Any Republican Senator Who Voted For Impeachment “On A Pike”
Trump Threatened To Put Any Republican Senator Who Voted For Impeachment “On A Pike.” According to CBS, “Democrats are wrapping up their impeachment arguments on Friday, telling senators they can’t trust President Trump. Nancy Cordes has learned that a Trump confidante reportedly told Republican senators that ‘a vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ She breaks down the implications on Capitol Hill.” [CBS, 1/24/20]
¶ Trump Threatened “Retribution” Against Democratic And Republican Lawmakers Involved In Impeachment
Trump Threatened “Retribution” Against Adam Schiff And Attacked Romney After Senate Acquittal. According to The Washington Post, “Shortly after the vote, Trump and his team were clearly out for revenge against those he believed had wronged him. And that’s especially the case with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who on Wednesday became the first member of a president’s own party to vote to remove him from office. The White House said in a statement after Trump’s acquittal that ‘only the President’s political opponents — all Democrats, and one failed Republican presidential candidate — voted for the manufactured impeachment articles.’ It even mentioned ‘retribution.’ ‘Rep. Adam B. Schiff lied to Congress and the American people with a totally made up statement about the President’s phone call,’ it said. ‘Will there be no retribution?’ Trump took to Twitter to launch a rather predictable attack on Romney. ‘Had failed presidential candidate @MittRomney devoted the same energy and anger to defeating a faltering Barack Obama as he sanctimoniously does to me, he could have won the election,’ Trump said.” [Washington Post, 2/6/20]
¶ Impeachment Witnesses Were Either Fired Or Quit Their Posts
Impeachment Witness Lt. Col. Vindman And His Brother Were Removed From Their National Security Council Positions. According to Politico, “The succession of personnel moves came amid a promise of ‘payback’ by White House officials against those who testified or played a role in the impeachment of the president […] Vindman's removal from a detail at the NSC came hours after the president told reporters he was ‘not happy’ with the aide. One of Vindman's lawyers, David Pressman, said his ouster was clear political retribution for his role in the impeachment inquiry. "There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House," Pressman said in a statement shared with reporters. ‘The truth has cost LTC Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy,’ Pressman said. Vindman's attorney indicated that the Iraq War veteran's twin brother Yevgeny, who serves as a senior lawyer on the NSC, was also removed from his post and exited the White House alongside his brother. Pressman said Yevgeny Vindman's ouster came with ‘no explanation’ and that he is ‘deeply disappointed that he will not be able to continue his service at the White House.’” [Politico, 2/7/20]
Trump Recalled Impeachment Witness And U.S. Ambassador To The EU Gordon Sondland Following His Senate Acquittal. According to Politico, “Late Friday, news emerged that Trump had ordered the recall of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union — ‘effective immediately,’ the ambassador noted in a statement. Hours earlier, the White House escorted out Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine policy officer on the National Security Counsel — along with his twin brother Yevgeny, who was not an impeachment witness.” [Politico, 2/7/20]
Top Impeachment Witnesses Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Michael McKinley, And Kurt Volker Left Their Posts After Testifying Against Trump. According to Politico, “Several of the top witnesses in the impeachment inquiry — including former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and former top U.S. envoy to Ukraine Bill Taylor — departed the State Department in recent days. Others, including former State Department hand Michael McKinley, former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker and Vindman’s NSC supervisor Tim Morrison, left during the course of the House investigation that ultimately resulted in Trump’s impeachment on charges that he abused his power and obstructed a congressional inquiry. The Senate acquitted Trump of both charges Wednesday, which was followed quickly by a vow from the White House to exact retribution on those who crossed the president.” [Politico, 2/7/20]
¶ Kellyanne Conway Suggested Trump Could Force Additional Officials Out Of Their Post
During An Interview On “Fox & Friends,” White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway Hinted That Additional Officials Could Be Forced Out Of Their Roles Following Ousters Last Week Of Lt. Col Vindman And Ambassador Sondland. According to Politico, “White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday hinted that additional officials could be forced out of their roles following the ousters last week of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland — both high-profile witnesses in the impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump. Asked during an interview on ‘Fox & Friends’ whether there will be more dismissals in the days to come, Conway said, ‘maybe,’ and sought to defend Vindman’s removal from a detail at the National Security Council. Vindman’s twin brother Yevgeny, who had served as a senior lawyer on the NSC, was also forced out of the White House on Friday. ‘In the case of the Vindman brothers, you remember, they were detailed here,’ and remain ‘employed today,’ Conway said, agreeing with host Steve Doocy’s assessment that the two former NSC staffers ‘didn't get fired’ but ‘just got relocated.’” [Politico, 2/10/20]
¶ Trump Fired FBI Director James Comey For Russia Investigation
May 2017: Trump Admitted He Fired James Comey Because Of The Russia Investigation. According to Real Clear Politics, “But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” [Real Clear Politics, 5/11/17]
¶ Trump Acknowledged That Firing Comey Helped Protect Himself From Criminal Investigations
February 2020: Trump Said He Would Not “Be Standing Here Right Now” Had He Not Fired Comey. According to Real Clear Politics, “President Donald Trump delivered a speech Thursday afternoon celebrating his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial. Trump denounced former FBI Director James Comey several times and said if not for firing him, he may not be in the White House today. ‘Had I not fired James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it’s possible I wouldn’t even be standing here right now,’ Trump said. ‘We caught him in the act. Dirty cops. Bad people. If this happened to President Obama, a lot of people would have been in jail for a long time already.’” [Real Clear Politics, 2/6/20]
¶ Trump Encouraged “Lock Her Up” Chants To Intimidate Women He Saw As Rivals Or Liars To Be Imprisoned Without Due Process
¶ “Lock Her Up” Chants Applied To Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, And Women Making Sexual Harassment Accusations
“Lock Her Up” Became A Popular Refrain For Trump And His Supporters In Reference To Hillary Clinton Throughout The 2016 Campaign And Beyond. According to The Hill, “After President Trump mentioned 2016 rival Hillary Clinton at a reelection campaign rally in Cincinnati, the crowd broke into a chant of ‘lock her up.’ Trump mentioned his former opponent and her use of the term ‘deplorable’ to describe a segment of Trump supporters. ‘Do you remember when Hillary used the word ‘deplorable’?’ he said. ‘Deplorable was not a good day for Hillary. Crooked Hillary. She is a crooked one,’ he said, adding, ‘She is crooked.’ After this, the crowd began to chant ‘lock her up,’ a refrain that supporters of the president commonly used during the 2016 election.” [Hill, 8/1/19]
Trump Egged On Supporters Into “Lock Her Up” Chant Directed Towards Senator Feinstein At Rally During Kavanaugh Hearings. According to USA Today, “A crowd of President Donald Trump’s supporters at an Iowa rally Tuesday began the familiar refrain – normally reserved for Trump’s 2016 opponent – after Trump mentioned the California Democratic senator. The president was taking a number of Democratic senators to task, who he said have gone ‘wacko,’ when he got to Feinstein. He accused the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee of leaking ‘the documents,’ presumably referring to the theory that her office leaked the letter containing Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the news media. […] At the point, the crowd began a thunderous chant of ‘Lock her up!’ in unison. / Trump paused for a moment before saying, ‘And I think they’re talking about Feinstein. Can you believe it?’” [USA Today, 10/10/18]
Trump Criticized Pelosi After State Of The Union And Impeachment Leading To “Lock Her Up” Chants From New Hampshire Rally Goers. According to The New York Post, “President Trump at a Monday night rally claimed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was ‘mumbling terribly’ behind him at last week’s State of the Union address — leading the New Hampshire crowd to chant ‘lock her up.’ ‘That was very distracting,’ the president told his supporters at the SNHU Arena in Manchester of Pelosi’s supposed interruption from the House chambers’ dais. ‘I’m speaking and a woman is mumbling terribly behind me. Angry, there was a little anger back there,’ the president said. ‘We’re the ones who should be angry.’ Trump’s remarks ignited the ‘lock her up’ chant that became a popular rally cry four years ago whenever the president mentioned his 2016 Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.” [New York Post, 2/10/20]
Trump Incited “Lock Her Up” Chant Against Women Making Sexual Harassment Accusations. According to tweet, “During rally in Indiana, Trump's supporters chant "lock her up!" as he attacks the women who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. "They have to look at the other ones!" Trump urges, referring to Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Debbie Ramirez” [Twitter.com, 11/5/18]
¶ “Lock Her Up” Chants Intended To Intimidate Women Who Disagreed With Trump
WaPo Column: “Lock Her Up” Was A Consequence For Any Woman Who Ran “Afoul Of What Trump Though She Should Be Doing” According to Washington Post column by Monica Hesse, “Lock up who? Lock up her. The “her” had become fungible. Any woman could become a woman who should be locked up; it required only running afoul of what Trump thought she should be doing.” [Washington Post Column – Monica Hesse , 7/19/19]
Linda Hirshman: “[Women Are] Intended To Feel Vulnerable And Be Deterred From The Behavior Of Disagreeing With [Trump]” According to Washington Post column by Monica Hesse, “‘It’s meant as a deterrent to all women,’ said Linda Hirshman, author of ‘Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment,’ when I asked how she thought these slogans worked. ‘You’re intended to feel vulnerable and be deterred from the...behavior of disagreeing with him.’” [Washington Post Column – Monica Hesse , 7/19/19]
¶ Trump Advocated Police Brutality, A Hallmark Of Authoritarianism
¶ Trump Told Police Officers It Was OK To Be “Rough” Towards People They ARrest
Trump Told Police Officers Not To “Be Too Nice” To People They Are Arresting And To Be A Little “Rough.” According to Vox, “In President Donald Trump’s speech Friday afternoon detailing his plan to fight back against MS-13 gang violence, he implored law enforcement, ‘Please, don’t be too nice,’ to the people they are arresting. Trump outlined a scenario in which a police officer would be careful not to harm a person they are arresting and instructed officers not to worry about that, saying: […] Now, we’re getting them [criminals] out anyway, but we’d like to get them out a lot faster, and when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody. Don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?” [Vox, 7/28/17]
¶ Critics Pointed OUt Police Brutality And Authoritarianism Went Together
ACLU: Donald Trump’s Talk To Police Officers Was Police State Authoritarianism Distilled to Its Essence. According to ACLU, “Donald Trump’s Talk to Police Officers Was Police-State Authoritarianism Distilled to Its Essence” [ACLU, 7/31/17]
Huff Po: Brazil’s Road To Authoritarianism Was Paved By An Authoritarian And Deadly Approach To Policing. According to The Huffington Post, “Brazil’s road to authoritarianism ― an authoritarianism under which its most marginalized communities will suffer most ― was paved in part by the country’s explicitly authoritarian approach to policing. […] Brazil’s police, by contrast, became even more deadly in the first decade of democratic rule, according to researchers. That, in part, was because the main police forces ― the states’ Military Police units, which are responsible for patrolling the streets and preventing crime ― were never brought under full civilian control.” [Huffington Post, 2/23/19]
¶ Trump And His Allies Argued He Had Sole Authority To Protect Himself And Target His Enemies
¶ Trump Claimed Right To Pardon Himself
Trump: “I Have The Absolute Right To PARDON Myself.” According to tweet, “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!” [Twitter.com, 6/4/18]
¶
¶ Trump Claimed Right To Ask Other Countries To Investigate Corruption
Trump: “I Have An Absolute Right [To Investigate Corruption…] And That Would Include Asking, Or Suggesting, Other Countries To Help Us Out!” According to Tweet, “As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!” [Twitter.com, 10/3/19]
¶ Impeachment Defense Argued Trump Couldn’t Be Impeached For Something He Believed Was “In The Public Interest”
Trump Lawyer Pat Cipollone: A Partisan Impeachment Is Like Stealing An Election. According to the New York Times, “While the team’s role was to watch the House managers establish their case on Wednesday, Mr. Cipollone made clear on the opening day that his central message would be one of contempt for the House managers’ efforts. ‘A partisan impeachment is like stealing an election,’ Mr. Cipollone declared, adding: ‘It’s outrageous. It’s outrageous. And the American people won’t stand for it, I’ll tell you that right now.’ He sat silent all day on Wednesday but demonstrated on Tuesday that he planned to take an aggressive approach not just defending the president but also assailing his accusers. Without much history in this kind of public political confrontations, Mr. Cipollone seemed a little nervous at first but quickly warmed to the task and adopted the relentless attack mode of his boss, his voice at times dripping with disdain over the Democrats he deemed partisan hacks and at one point demanding they apologize.” [New York Times, 1/22/20]
Trump Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Argued A President Can’t Be Impeached For Doing Something “He Believes Will Help Him Get Elected In The Public Interest.” According to Business Insider, “Alan Dershowitz, one of President Donald Trump’s defense attorneys, argued during Wednesday’s impeachment trial that a president can’t be impeached for a quid pro quo designed to boost his reelection chances if he believes his reelection is in the public interest. ‘Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, you’re right — your election is in the public interest,’ Dershowitz said. ‘If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.’” [Business Insider, 1/29/20]
¶ Trump Treated The Attorney General As His Personal Lawyer
¶ Trump Treated DOJ And AG AS His Personal Defense
AP: Trump Saw Little Difference Between AG Barr And His Personal Lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to AP, “Barr is the nation’s top law enforcement officer and leads a Cabinet department that traditionally has a modicum of independence from the White House. Yet to Trump, there often appears to be little difference between the two lawyers. […] Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said Trump is treating the country’s attorney general as if he’s just another personal lawyer. ‘I think it represents a larger problem with President Trump,’ she said. ‘To him, it appears Giuliani and Barr both have the same job.’ Trump has frequently lauded Barr and his efforts to embrace the president’s political agenda. That’s in stark contrast to Trump’s relationship with his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, whom the president repeatedly harangued in public. ” [AP, 9/29/19]
AP: Trump’s Public “Frustration” With Sessions Showed He Viewed DOJ As An Agency Meant To Protect Him And Carry Out His Wishes. According to AP, “Trump’s frustration with Sessions made clear how the president views the Justice Department — as a law enforcement agency that exists to carry out his wishes and protect him. Despite a close relationship during the 2016 campaign, Trump never forgave Sessions for withdrawing from the government’s investigation into 2016 election interference, a move that ultimately cleared the way for Mueller’s investigation.” [AP, 9/29/19]
Sally Yates Said Trump Used The DOJ As “His Personal Grudge Squad.” According to The Hill, “Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates swiped at President Trump in an opinion piece published Friday in The Washington Post, accusing him of using the Department of Justice (DOJ) as ’his personal grudge squad’ after the handling of Roger Stone‘s case. ‘From virtually the moment he took office, President Trump has attempted to use the Justice Department as a cudgel against his enemies and as a shield for himself and his allies,’ Yates wrote. ‘The president has attempted to order up investigations of his perceived political enemies and enlist the department to protect his friends. With every blow, the wall of Justice independence has wobbled a bit more. This week, it teetered on the verge of collapse.’ ” [Hill, 2/14/20]
¶ DOJ Was Intended To Defend The United States, Not The President
The Job Of White House And DOJ Attorneys Was To Represent The United States Of America. According to The Atlantic, “Government attorneys are not like those in private practice, whose job it is to execute their clients’ wishes, to the extent that ethical norms and the law permit. Attorneys for the Justice Department and the White House represent the interests of the government and the public, not the individual interests of the president. The American Bar Association’s Rule 1.13(b) accordingly provides that ‘if a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action … that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization … and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed … in the best interest of the organization.’ For the White House counsel and the Justice Department, that organization is the United States of America.’ [Atlantic, 10/19/19]
¶ Trump Wanted AG Barr To Hold News Conference Stating The President Broke No Laws In Ukraine Call
Trump Want Attorney General William Barr To Hold News Conference Declaring That The President Did Not Break Any Laws During The Phone Call With Zelensky. According to the Washington Post, “President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said. The request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department. The president has mentioned Barr’s demurral to associates in recent weeks, saying he wished Barr would have held the news conference, Trump advisers say.” [Washington Post, 11/6/19]
¶ Barr Used Office Of AG To Protect Trump
¶ Barr Used Press Conference To Defend Trump From Mueller Report
AG Barr Held Press Conference To State The Mueller Report Revealed “No Collusion” Between Trump And Russians. According to Time, “Attorney General William Barr used his press conference in advance of the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s report to issue an emphatic statement about the report’s conclusions: Russia had indeed interfered with the 2016 presidential election, but neither Donald Trump nor his associates cooperated with them. Barr ventured beyond an explanation of Justice Department processes to frame the report’s conclusions for the public. Using language that echoed the President’s own, he repeated a half-dozen times that there had been “no collusion” between Trump’s team and Russian officials. ” [Time, 4/18/19]
Quartz: Barr’s Press Conference On The Mueller Report Sounded “Like An Opening Statement At A Trial In Which He Was Hired To Specifically Defend The President.” According to Quartz, “Attorney general William Barr is the head of the US Department of Justice, not the president’s personal defense attorney—at least technically. But when Barr addressed the public today ahead of releasing the special counsel’s conclusions on Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections—better known as the Mueller Report—he sounded a lot like a hired gun. The AG’s remarks were formulated like an opening statement at a trial in which he was hired to specifically defend the president. ‘President Trump faced an unprecedented situation,’ Barr said. Under investigation as he took office and facing ‘relentless speculation’ from the media, Trump was ‘frustrated and angry.’ ” [Quartz, 4/18/19]
¶ Mueller Said His Report Did Not Exonerate Trump
Mueller Testified To Congress That His Report Stated The Russians Interfered In The Election And Trump Was Not Exonerated. According to The Guardian, “The former US special counsel Robert Mueller methodically demolished Donald Trump’s central claims about his Russia investigation – insisting the results did not exonerate Trump – but he did not provide the fireworks that supporters of impeachment had been craving as he testified to Congress on Wednesday. Testifying for almost seven hours at back-to-back hearings on Capitol Hill, Mueller rejected the US president’s claims that his investigation was ‘a witch-hunt’, that Russian election interference was ‘a hoax’ and that Mueller’s report provided Trump with ‘total exoneration’.” [Guardian, 7/24/19]
¶
¶ AG Barr Stated That Investigations Into 2020 Candidates Must Be Cleared By Top Justice Dept. Officials
Attorney General Barr Issued New Restrictions Stating That Investigations Into 2020 Candidates Must Be Cleared By Top Justice Department Officials. According to the New York Times, “Attorney General William P. Barr issued new restrictions on Wednesday over the opening of politically sensitive investigations, an effort meant to avoid upending the presidential election as the F.B.I. inadvertently did in 2016 when its campaign inquiries shaped the outcome of the race. The order by Mr. Barr, announced in a memo reviewed by The New York Times, comes after a scathing report by the inspector general that showed how F.B.I. agents did not follow protocols and falsified information in their bid to investigate Carter Page, a former Trump campaign associate. The memo, which said the Justice Department had a duty to ensure that elections are ‘free from improper activity or influences,’ was issued on the same day that President Trump was acquitted on charges that he had abused his office to push a foreign power to publicly announce investigations into his political rivals. The memo said that the F.B.I. and all other divisions under the department’s purview must get Mr. Barr’s approval before investigating any of the 2020 presidential candidates.” [New York Times, 2/5/20]
¶ AG Barr’s Actions To Protect Trump Were Criticized
¶ Judge Cited Barr’s ‘Misleading’ Statements In Ordering Review Of Mueller Report Redactions
A Federal Judge Cited Attorney General Barr’s ‘Lack Of Candor’ In Discrepancy Between Statements About And Redacted Version Of Mueller Report. According to the Washington Post, “A federal judge in Washington sharply criticized Attorney General William P. Barr on Thursday for a ‘lack of candor,’ questioning the truthfulness of the nation’s top law enforcement official in his handling of last year’s report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, overseeing a lawsuit brought by EPIC, a watchdog group, and BuzzFeed News, said he saw serious discrepancies between Barr’s public statements about Mueller’s findings and the public, partially redacted version of that report detailing the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Because of those discrepancies, Walton ruled, the judge would conduct an independent review of Mueller’s full report to see whether the Justice Department’s redactions were appropriate.” [Washington Post, 3/5/20]
Judge Walton Stated That He Would Not Take Justice Department Lawyers At Their Word That Redactions In The Report Were All Done For Appropriate Reasons. According to the Washington Post, “In his 23-page opinion, Walton said he had ‘grave concerns about the objectivity of the process’ that led up to the public release of the Mueller report. ‘The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,’ he wrote. ‘These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility.’ The judge said he would not take Justice Department lawyers at their word that redactions in the report were all done for appropriate reasons.” [Washington Post, 3/5/20]
¶ NYC Bar Association Asked Congress To Investigate AG Barr For Bias
The New York City Bar Association Asked Congress To Investigate Attorney General Barr For Political Bias. According to Bloomberg, “The New York City Bar Association has asked Congress to investigate U.S. Attorney General William Barr, saying his recent actions and statements have positioned the Justice Department and its prosecutors as ‘political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others.’ The request, disclosed on Thursday, appears to be the first time a bar association from New York City or any comparable group has asked Congress to investigate a sitting attorney general. Last year, 450 former federal prosecutors from Republican and Democratic administrations signed a statement chastising Barr for his handling of the Mueller report on Russian election interference.” [Bloomberg, 1/9/20]
Leaders Of The New York City Barr Association Stated That Public Statements By AG Barr Have Proved Troubling For An Official Meant To Enforce The Law Without Bias. According to Bloomberg, “In a letter sent this week to the majority and minority leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, the leaders of the New York City group described public statements by the attorney general as troubling for an official whose job is to enforce the law without bias. ‘The duties to act impartially, to avoid even the appearance of partiality and impropriety, and to avoid manifesting bias, prejudice or partisanship in the exercise of official responsibilities are bedrock obligations for government lawyers,’ according to the letter, which was posted Thursday on the website of the voluntary membership association, whose ranks include defense and plaintiffs’ lawyers and those with experience as federal prosecutors. ‘Mr. Barr has disregarded these fundamental obligations in several public statements during the past few months,’ the letter continued.” [Bloomberg, 1/9/20]
¶ Trump Sent DHS To Democrat Governed Cities, Used Federal Law Enforcement To Violently Cracked Down On Protestors
¶ Trump Sent The DHS To PortlanD, Where Agents Violently Cracked Down On Protestors
¶ Federal Authorities Assembled Force Of 114 Federal Officers To Protect Federal Buildings In Portland In A Mission Dubbed ‘Operation Diligent Valor’
Federal Authorities Assembled A Force Of 114 Federal Officers To Protect U.S. Government Buildings In Portland, In Response To Ongoing Protests, As Part Of A Mission Dubbed ‘Operation Diligent Valor.’ According to Politico, “Federal authorities have assembled a force of 114 federal officers to protect U.S. government buildings in Portland, Ore., in response to ongoing protests, unrest and violence there, as part of a mission dubbed ‘Operation Diligent Valor.’ Details of the federal response were disclosed in a court filing. The team of camouflage-clad federal agents who have prompted alarm and criticism by snatching individuals from the streets of Portland appears to be a ‘Rapid Deployment Force’ that is part of the Department of Homeland Security-led operation, based on information the force’s commander submitted Tuesday night in connection with one of several lawsuits challenging those practices. Federal Protective Service northwest regional director Gabriel Russell said the Rapid Deployment Force he oversees stepped up its activities on July 4 following what he called a ‘brazen’ attempt to set fire to the Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse the previous day.” [Politico, 7/22/20]
Videos That Circulated Widely Showed Men In Camouflage With Limited Insignia Chasing Down People Who Appear to Be Protestors And Taking Them Away. According to Politico, “The team of camouflage-clad federal agents who have prompted alarm and criticism by snatching individuals from the streets of Portland appears to be a “Rapid Deployment Force” that is part of the Department of Homeland Security-led operation, based on information the force’s commander submitted Tuesday night in connection with one of several lawsuits challenging those practices. Federal Protective Service northwest regional director Gabriel Russell said the Rapid Deployment Force he oversees stepped up its activities on July 4 following what he called a ‘brazen’ attempt to set fire to the Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse the previous day. Some people caught up in such sweeps say they were held at a nondescript location and then released without charges. Oregon's two senators, Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, took to the Senate floor Tuesday to call for a ban on what they described as ‘paramilitary’ operations on the streets of Portland.” [Politico, 7/22/20]
¶ Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler Was Tear-Gassed At Protests By Federal Law Enforcement
Portland, Ore., Mayor Ted Wheeler Was Among Protestors Tear-Gassed Wednesday By An Assort Of DHS Agents Trump Deployed To The City. According to Politico, “Portland, Ore., Mayor Ted Wheeler was among the protesters tear-gassed Wednesday evening by an assortment of Department of Homeland Security agents President Donald Trump has deployed to the city amid unrest and mass demonstrations against racial injustice and police brutality. Videos of the protests circulating online show the mayor’s encounter with federal officers came after he waded into crowds of protesters and was confronted by calls for his resignation and various law enforcement reforms. Wheeler then apparently walked to the city’s federal courthouse, which has become a focal point of the protests, where he and others were targeted by the officers with volleys of tear gas. A hodgepodge of U.S. government forces has occupied Portland since the July 4 weekend after DHS officials claimed they received intelligence regarding ‘planned attacks’ on federal facilities there. The city’s protests, which emerged in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing in May by Minneapolis police, have now continued for more than 50 consecutive days.” [Politico, 7/23/20]
¶ Trump’s Law Enforcement Officials Brushed Off Pleas To Stay Out Of Portland
Acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli Warned The DHS Would Advance Its Various Law Enforcement Components Into Other American Cities. According to Politico, “In an interview on CNN, acting deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli claimed the department deployed federal law enforcement personnel to Portland over the July 4 weekend after having received ‘locally generated’ intelligence regarding ‘planned attacks’ on federal facilities […] Cuccinelli also warned DHS would advance its various law enforcement components into other American cities ‘if we get the same kind of intelligence’ about threats to federal facilities or officers, saying: ‘We would respond the same way.’” [Politico, 7/20/20]
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf: The DHS ‘Is Not Going To Back Down From Our Responsibilities.’ According to Politico, “Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler urged the Trump administration Sunday to call off its intervention in the city, accusing the federal forces of ‘sharply escalating the situation’ and employing tactics that are ‘abhorrent’ and ‘completely unconstitutional.’ But acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf insisted Monday that the ‘violent anarchists and extremists’ protesting in Portland ‘were violent well before DHS surged federal assets’ there. ‘DHS is not going to back down from our responsibilities,’ Wolf told Fox News. ‘We are not escalating. We are protecting, again, federal facilities. It’s our job.’” [Politico, 7/20/20]
Acting Customs And Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan: We’re Not Going Anywhere. According to Politico, “Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan also disputed the mayor’s assessment of the federal law enforcement presence, calling it a ‘stupid statement’ that was ‘not based in reality or fact.’ Morgan described the Portland protesters as ‘criminals’ who were ‘willfully coordinating, organizing and planning to intentionally attack and destroy federal property,’ as well as harm U.S. government officers. ‘We’re not going anywhere,’ he told Fox News.” [Politico, 7/20/20]
¶ Emails Showed That The Trump Administration Planned To Keep Federal Presence In Portland Into October
The Trump Administration Planned To Keep Federal Agents In Portland Through At Least Mid-October, According To An Internal Email Obtained By CNN. According to CNN, “he Trump administration is planning to keep federal agents in Portland, Oregon, through at least mid-October, according to an internal email obtained by CNN. Portland has been the site of ongoing protests for more than 50 days that have turned violent, sparking outrage among local officials who have faulted the federal presence for aggravating the situation on the ground. But as protests persist, Customs and Border Protection -- part of the Department of Homeland Security -- is laying the groundwork for continued presence in the city on a rotational basis to relieve those agents who have been in Portland and who may be deployed in the near future. The CBP email shows Border Patrol offices being asked for teams of about 20-25 personnel. Specifically, the agency is looking for agents of a special unit that has received tactical training and can be called upon to deploy immediately when needed. The email also calls for agents from another Border Patrol unit that provides search and rescue response and intelligence personnel.” [CNN, 7/28/20]
Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge: The Presence Of Federal Authorities In Portland Is ‘Not Consistent’ With The Department’s Mission. According to CNN, “Current and former Homeland Security officials warn the increased politicization of law enforcement risks undercutting public trust in the department, which was established after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday that the presence of federal authorities in Portland is ‘not consistent’ with the Department of Homeland Security's mission. Ridge, the department's first leader, said the first words of the department's vision statement that he helped establish are ‘preserving our freedoms.’ ‘When they appear to be quasi-military rather than law enforcement, I think it's like pouring a little bit of gasoline on the fire,’ Ridge told CNN.” [CNN, 7/28/20]