Trump 2.0: A Presidency Driven by Revenge

Donald Trump's presidency was marked by his repeated attempts to use the government as a tool against his political rivals, raising concerns about authoritarian practices.

Trump repeatedly sought to leverage the powers of the federal government to target and investigate his political opponents, despite warnings from his staff about the dangers of such conduct.

Throughout his term, Donald Trump persistently inquired about using government power to investigate his perceived enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and others. Despite stern warnings from his staff, including White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and White House Counsel Don McGahn, about the risk of undermining democratic norms, Trump pushed for these investigations. In response to Trump's requests, McGahn composed a memo detailing the president's permissible actions, partly to document counsel given to Trump, and partly in the hope that Trump would become distracted by other issues.

Trump pushed for the IRS and Justice Department to investigate former FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and other perceived enemies, despite warnings from his own White House counsel.

Trump expressed a desire to use the IRS and Justice Department against Comey and Clinton. He instructed John Kelly to institute investigations, which resulted in a criminal investigation into Comey and a rigorous IRS audit for both Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe. Additionally, after taking office and initially suggesting he would not pursue prosecution against Clinton, Trump revisited the idea of government-led investigations against her and others when his administration faced scrutiny over ties to Russia.

Trump publicly accused his former Secretary of State John Kerry of illegal activity, leading to a DOJ investigation that ultimately found no prosecutable offense but still imposed a drawn-out process on Kerry.

In a public forum, Trump accused John Kerry of breaking the law through his interactions with Iranian diplomats. Shortly after the accusation, the Justice Department initiated an investigation into the matter based on the laws Trump cited in his tweets.

The Trump administration's efforts to wield the powers of the government against the president's political rivals represented a concerning trend toward authoritarianism.

Mike Schmidt highlights the problematic trajectory of Trump's behaviors during his presidency, especially his penchant for weaponizing the government against his adver ...

The Justice Department and other agencies have been observed taking action that appears to coincide with President Trump’s public statements and pressure to investigate his political adversaries.

The Justice Department and other agencies, at times, appeared to act on the basis of Trump's public statements and private pressure, rather than objective assessments of the facts and the law.

Indeed, there have been numerous instances where the will of President Trump, expressed through public declarations or behind closed doors, has seemingly been translated into actions taken by the Justice Department, FBI, or IRS against his political opponents.

In the case of the investigation into John Kerry, a top DOJ official reached out to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan shortly after Trump publicly accused Kerry of illegal activity, suggesting the investigation was prompted by the president's statements.

After President Trump accused John Kerry of illegal acts, a high-ranking official from the Justice Department contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, prompting them to open an investigation. This move raised concerns that the action was influenced by Trump's public comments rather than independent legal analysis.

Similarly, when the initial U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to bring charges against Kerry, officials from Attorney General William Barr's office pushed to have the case transferred to another jurisdiction in an apparent effort to find a prosecutor willing to pursue the president's desired outcome.

When the office initially assigned to the Kerry case decided not to pursue charges, there was an attempt from officials within Attorney General William Barr's circle to transfer the case elsewhere. This suggested a search for a different prosecutor who might deliver the outcome that President Trump favored.

The targeting of lower-level figures, such as election workers, raised concerns about the potential for a broader "trickle-down" effect of the administration's retributive actions.

It wasn’t only high-profile ...

Schmidt, in a podcast discussion, emphasizes how particular actions, possibly stemming from political retribution, could impact the foundations of democratic institutions and norms in the United States.

The undermining of public trust in democratic institutions

The use of governmental powers for political retribution can lead to a significant deterioration of public trust in democratic institutions. If the public begins to doubt the impartiality and independence of the justice system, maintaining confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of the government becomes increasingly difficult. Schmidt implies that Donald Trump's potential to weaponize the government against his enemies threatens to pitch the country toward authoritarianism, deeply affecting democratic institutions and norms.

In the discussion, Schmidt highlights the memos advising extreme caution against going after political enemies because such actions could lead to a negative public perception of the government. The podcast points out that the unusual audit and investigation actions against Comey and McCabe, both of whom were subject to a rare type of audit, with odds of one in 82 million, cast doubts on the government's impartiality.

The normalization of retribution and its impact on democratic checks and balances

If unchecked, the normalization of using governmental powers for personal vendettas could embolden future presidents to undermine democratic checks and balances further. This culture of retribution could suppress dissent, making elected officials and citizens increasingly hesitant to criticize or challenge the president, fearing retaliation ...