The continuous threats from the ex-President Donald Trump to potentially take legal actions against individuals he perceives as antagonists have raised alarms among specialists in democratic and legal affairs. They emphasize that Trump’s past behaviour substantiates his capability to fulfill these threats if given another term in the presidency. Recently, through the Republican nominee’s platform, Truth Social, Trump claimed that there was pervasive ‘fraud and dishonesty’ in the 2020 presidential polls. This comes despite countless audits and recounts disproving his allegations that he seemed to lose due to electoral fraud.
In relation, Trump extended his unfounded allegations of electoral fraud towards the 2024 elections, indicating that different groups must be cautious. He hinted that ‘those individuals that cheated would face prosecution’ following his 2024 electoral victory. This public announcement occurred in close proximity to another incident when Trump shared posts on Truth Social advocating for military tribunals against the previous president, Barack Obama and for accusing the House committee that probed the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
Characteristicizing these comments, Richard Painter, erstwhile ethics counsel for the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency, equated this situation to the scenario under President Vladimir Putin’s rule in Russia. In Putin’s regime, dissenters often find themselves embroiled in accusations of ‘extremism’ or ‘treason,’ subsequently jailed. ‘The concept of the victor imprisoning the loser is perilous to democracy,’ Painter shared with USA TODAY. In the same context, Karoline Leavitt, the National Press Secretary for Trump’s campaign, conveyed to USA TODAY via email that Trump firmly stands by the principle that any lawbreakers must be prosecuted thoroughly — inclusive of culprits of electoral fraud.
The ex-president has previously indicated that bringing his adversaries to trial could be seen as a valid form of retribution for his own legal problems. Contrasting this, Painter reminded that current President Joe Biden never included any pledges to incarcerate Trump during his campaign. ‘When Trump engaged in his actions, an impartial prosecutor was appointed,’ he remarked, hinting at special counsel Jack Smith.
Trump’s inclination to prosecute those he sees as rivals is not unfamiliar. Robert Gordon, a professor of Law at Stanford, suggested that even though Trump’s tendency to exaggerate is well-known, there is enough evidence to infer that he is serious about using the justice system for retaliatory purposes. The Mueller report reveals that Jeff Sessions, Trump’s initial attorney general, claimed that Trump had asked him to change his mind about excusing himself from investigations related to the presidential campaign. Trump then wanted him to instruct the Justice Department to inquire into and sue Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2017.
During the spring of 2018, Trump communicated to White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, a desire to command the Justice Department to bring Hillary Clinton and James Comey into litigation. Trump had previously dismissed Comey, the ex-director of the FBI, amid an investigation related to Russian interference intended to support Trump’s presidential bid in 2016, as reported by the New York Times.
Amanda Carpenter, ex-staffer for Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz and current employee of nonpartisan nonprofit Protect Democracy, informed USA TODAY that subordinate officials might find it easier to proceed with legal prosecutions, even if they lack substantial evidence. The reasoning behind this she suggested, is that there would be reduced checks on presidential power.
She highlighted that ‘the legal action he’s threatening against individuals questioning his authority is rooted in smear campaigns, conspiracy theories, and falsehoods.’ One noteworthy academic has voiced support for using the justice system for retaliation, arguing that Trump shouldn’t have been indicted and vengeful prosecutions might act as a remedy.
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, proposed in National Review that legal cases against Trump might deter future presidents from taking actions during crises due to the fear of prosecution. He presented this argument during May, suggesting that the use of law for retaliation is a way to rectify this situation.