_edited.jpg)
Author’s Note:
After around six months of scrupulous investigation followed by another two spent structuring, drafting, and refining my line of reasoning, Overheard in the Capitol’s greatest project is finally here.
This publication hardly qualifies as an ‘article,’ but instead better reflects that of a mini-novel, or ‘dissertation’ of sorts. I’d recommend treating it as such, reading it case-by-case as opposed to tackling it all in one sitting.
I hope this publication finds every reader well, whether or not they agree with the personal views I’ve expressed herein, and as always, my website’s ‘forums’ page serves to facilitate open-ended discourse. Lastly, don’t hesitate to share this with friends, family, colleagues, or peers, as I believe its message is one that every engaged American should have on their radar.
Enjoy.
-Eli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
The initial indictment of Democratic New Jersey senator Robert ‘Bob’ Menendez was issued on September 22nd by Damian Williams, a registered Democrat and Biden-appointed U.S. attorney serving the Southern District of New York. The charges allege that Menendez, in conspiracy with his wife and three New Jersey businessmen, accepted bribes and leveraged his position as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to provide military aid to Egypt’s authoritarian government.
Accompanying the indictment, prosecutor Damian Williams released the following statement detailing the charges: “As the grand jury charged, between 2018 and 2022, Senator Menendez and his wife (Nadine Menendez) engaged in a corrupt relationship with Wael Hana, Jose Uribe, and Fred Daibes—three New Jersey businessmen who collectively paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes, including cash, gold, a Mercedes Benz, and other things of value—in exchange for Senator Menendez agreeing to use his power and influence to protect and enrich those businessmen and to benefit the Government of Egypt. My Office is firmly committed to rooting out corruption, without fear or favor, and without any regard (for) partisan politics. We will continue to do so.” U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein—also a Democrat—will preside over the case.
Menendez has since stepped down from his position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but refuses to resign from the Senate entirely, despite advocacy from many of his Democratic colleagues. He was then slammed with a superseding indictment on October 12 accusing him, his wife, and Mr. Hana of acting as unauthorized agents of the Egyptian government on behalf of its military interests rather than Menendez’s constituents. His trial on corruption charges will begin in May 2024.
Senator Menendez is no newcomer to encounters with federal authorities. He was first indicted in 2015 for conspiracy, bribery, and honest services fraud. In 2017 a jury deadlocked and all charges were dropped. In 2023 Menendez now faces the new aforementioned charges, but despite his slew of legal woes, he’s yet to face any convictions.
This indictment contributes to a mounting stack of prosecutions filed by federal and state justice departments against prominent political figures including, but not limited to Representative George Santos (R-NY), Hunter Biden, and of course, former president Donald Trump.
Such expansive and diligent efforts to root out corruption in the political sphere have heightened scrutiny of the system itself as citizens question the indictments’ validity against the backdrop of prosecutors’ potential political vendettas; many claim the corruption police have become corrupt themselves, dubbing our system a ‘weaponized justice system.’ This accusation plays into a broader ongoing theme of declining public trust in the federal judiciary, which has inherently adverse implications for the health of our democracy.
In Menendez’s case, Democratic leaders support the indictment and have called for his resignation from office, while many Republicans proclaim he’s an innocent victim of Biden’s
‘corrupt DOJ.’ They attribute Menendez’s situation to Biden’s ‘weaponized justice system’, which they claim exists to advance Biden’s political agenda and jail his adversaries.
Like wildfire, the ‘weaponized justice system’ narrative has rapidly diminished citizens’ faith in our judiciary; according to a survey conducted in October of 2022 by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, only 48% of U.S. adults believe in federal and state courts’ capabilities to administer justice in an objective and fair manner.
In light of judicial disapproval and heightened promulgation of the weaponized justice system narrative, I juxtaposed the ongoing cases against Menendez and Santos, investigated the narrative’s origins, and numerically examined our justice system’s prosecutions of political figures since the year 2000, seeking to disprove—or corroborate—its critics. Ultimately, political bias plays an inconsequential role in today’s administration of justice, rendering the system as a whole nonpartisan and the weaponization accusations merely another right-wing conspiracy theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion:
The U.S. justice system’s critics come from all ends of the political spectrum, and rightfully so; it’s far from perfect as it stands today. In the case of divided government, judicial appointments—particularly to the Supreme Court— erupt into contentious showdowns, new ethical concerns emerge routinely, decisions among courts at all levels almost always split along party lines, and transparency is obstructed by increased use of the ‘shadow docket’ for divisive cases in the name of ‘efficiency’. These account for just some of the U.S. justice system’s conspicuous flaws.
Despite its many shortcomings, however, today’s justice system is not guilty of its most damning accusation: weaponization by President Biden. The accusation also fits with MAGA Republicans’ tendency to adhere to irrational conspiracy theories (QAnon…) because ‘Biden’s weaponized DOJ’ is the most ludicrous conspiracy of them all.
The claim that Biden has weaponized the federal judiciary to entrench himself in power is faulty on three primary bases: 1) The U.S. justice system is only ‘weaponized’ when beneficial for MAGA members to say so; 2) The narrative is rooted in false or misleading information; and finally, 3) Empirical evidence reveals an equal number of politicians prosecuted from both parties. The following three case studies each flesh out one of these pieces of evidence in greater detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1: Senator Bob Menendez and Representative George Santos’s indictments
Reactions to both Menendez and Santos’s high-profile prosecutions split along party lines, but not in the manner many political observers may expect. This is because MAGA Republicans only play the ‘weaponized justice system’ card when it’s convenient for them to do so.
Senator Menendez
The initial indictment on September 22, 2023, of Democratic New Jersey senator Robert ‘Bob’ Menendez was met with support from congressional Democrats who feel that Menendez’s shady operations taint the party’s image. By September 26, just four days after the indictment’s filing, over 18 Democratic senators amongst other party leaders had called for Menendez’s resignation from the Senate. When asked to comment on the situation, representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) said, “It’s a horrible look for him, first and foremost. It’s a bad look for Democrats. It’s also a bad look for Congress and a bad look for elected officials across the country. The almost general consensus from people who do not consistently engage in our democracy is that ‘Politics (are) corrupt.’ Politicians don’t care about us. We vote them in office, and they do nothing for us.”
Bowman’s statement reflects the Democratic Party’s popular view of Menendez and the threat posed by his repeated controversies. As the party that focuses on minority, underprivileged, and grassroots movement voters, Bowman’s perspective underscores Democrat’s need to disassociate from the brand of elitist corruption Menendez reportedly engaged in to perform in the 2024 elections. With this electoral connection in mind, it’s logical that Democrats aren’t sticking their necks on the line in defense of a historically controversial colleague who tarnishes their image.
In a concurring, yet more nuanced analysis, Menendez’s fellow Democratic New Jersey Senate-mate Corey Booker offered the following insight: “A jury of his peers will make the ultimate decision as to whether he is criminally guilty. There is, however, another higher standard for public officials, one not of criminal law but of common ideals. As senators, we operate in the public trust. That trust is essential to our ability to do our work and perform our duties for our constituents.”
In his astute observation of Menendez’s situation, Booker lays out two, distinguishable criteria by which to judge the actions of elected officials: one of legality and the other, morality, which he argues carries greater significance. Applying these criteria to Menendez’s case, regardless of provable guilt—whether or not Menendez embellished himself via the acceptance of lavish gifts—he jeopardized national security while simultaneously failing to serve his constituents' interests, demonstrating an overt disregard for public trust or ethical obligations.
Booker’s view exemplifies the righteous standard to which elected officials must adhere, a standard that MAGA (not all) Republicans completely reject. Four independent grand juries have indicted Donald Trump based on evidence they found to warrant a prosecution and Senator Menendez has endured more than his fair share of controversy to justify suspicion, yet far-right conservatives continue defending both Menendez and Trump in their cases of public sentiment against the government.
Only judging politicians from a legal standpoint is a big mistake; it empowers them to act wrongfully and reprimandably because they know they won’t face accountability unless they also act illegally. However, immoral politicians should still pay for failing their elected duty to abide by the highest standards of governance. Without factoring in this rather intangible, yet much more telling standard, elected officials have free reign to get as close to the threshold of legality as they please, so long as they don’t cross it. So we must ask ourselves, is a legal standard the only standard to which we want to hold our elected officials accountable? I think not.
Having dissected the reasoning behind Democrats’ supportive response to Menendez’s indictment, it’s time to investigate the rather confounding Republican viewpoint.
Contrary to expectations, many Republicans are defending the New Jersey Democrat. Because distancing themselves from Menendez is in congressional Democrats’ best interests, some Republicans have twisted the indictment, dubbing it a Democratic ‘hit job’ by the ‘corrupt administration.’ For the GOP, painting Menendez as a victim of Democratic corruption reinforces their overarching narrative that Biden has weaponized the U.S. justice system, an argument they hope to ride to electoral fruition in 2024; yes, the electoral connection influences Republican’s response as well. This deliberate distortion of Menendez’s indictment constitutes a malicious case of manipulating public opinion for personal benefit.
The GOP’s *proclaimed* reason for supporting Menendez stems from their adherence to the doctrine of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Certain congressional Republicans condemn Democrats calling for Menendez’s resignation on the basis that he deserves a presumption of innocence, especially against the backdrop of what they consider ‘shady behavior’ by today’s justice system. Tom Cotton—a Republican senator from Arkansas—urged Menendez not to resign immediately following the indictment’s publicization, arguing that “...the Department of Justice has a troubling record of failure and corruption in cases against public figures, from Ted Stevens to Bob McDonnell to Donald Trump to Bob Menendez the last time around.” Cotton’s Floridian colleague, Marco Rubio, publicly echoed his sentiment.
Representative George Santos (R-NY) also weighed in on behalf of the GOP: “When did we walk away from the fabric of our Constitution, that everybody has a presumption of innocence before anything else? So I don’t think he (Menendez) should resign.”
While this rhetoric seems authentically in line with concern over due process rights, Republican’s support is disingenuous. In reality, these unsuspecting MAGA Menendez defenders are only backing him because it reinforces their own weaponized justice system narrative; Republicans are faking support for Menendez because doing so boosts their agenda.
Representative Santos
Moreover, a severe case of hypocrisy becomes evident upon analyzing Republicans’ reactions to George Santos’s heaping stack of 23 charges including, but not limited to: conspiracy, wire fraud, false statements, falsification of records, aggravated identity theft, and credit card fraud.
Originally, Santos’s fellow congressional Republicans defended him against the government using similar arguments of due process rights and a ‘weaponized DOJ’ as they’re now doing for Menendez. However, as damning evidence mounted against Santos and his name became synonymous with lies and corruption, a caucus of House Republicans opted to sweep their previous support under the rug by instead bringing a vote to expel Santos from the House of Representatives, which succeeded on December 1st, 2023. Ironically, Republicans who criticize Democrats for wanting to oust Menendez ended up employing the same tactic to clear their party’s name from affiliation with corruption…
Continuing the irony, the same individuals denouncing congressional Democrats for abandoning the presumption of innocence regarding Menendez are guilty of the same crime; instead of Menendez, however, MAGA Republicans presume the government guilty of corruption until proven innocent in cases against political figures.
When determining whether the Democrat’s or Republican’s reasoning makes more sense, apply Occam’s razor, the problem-solving technique asserting that simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones:
Either the controversy-ridden Menendez has committed yet another culpable act, or many members of the federal judiciary working on independent investigations over different periods throughout the last decade are engaged in a never-before-seen master conspiracy to destroy the rank-and-file politician’s career.
This is not to say that Menendez is positively guilty of his charges, but if forced to speculate guilt, Occam’s razor would render Menendez, not the U.S. government, the culprit. Besides, by MAGA Republicans’ same argument, doesn’t the government deserve an assumption of innocence for its accusations of engaging in a conspiracy against select politicians?
Regardless of strategic framing, MAGA Republican’s support for Senator Menendez against the government’s accusations is merely a facade; they only claim to back him because it supports their key narrative of the Biden-weaponized DOJ. However, the GOP’s counterfeit support for Menendez and hypocritical treatment of George Santos’s legal troubles undermine this very narrative—their actions in both situations reveal how inconsistently, strategically, and maliciously Republicans apply the conspiracy against the government.
That’s the first reason why the ‘weaponized justice system’ claim is just one big hoax; it only applies when it benefits the GOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2: The ‘weaponized justice system’ theory’s baseless origins
On March 4th, 2023, speaking at a campaign rally in National Harbor, Maryland, former president Donald J. Trump vowed, “I will fire the unelected bureaucrats and shadow forces who have weaponized our justice system like it has never been weaponized before.”
Just a few short weeks later in Waco, Texas, Trump proclaimed that “patriotic parents, Christians, conservatives, pro-life activists are being hounded by the F.B.I. and the D.O.J. like terrorists. They’re being treated so badly.” He later publicly stated that “Joe Biden has weaponized law enforcement against his political opposition, the greatest abuse of power in American history, by far.” Trump also continues rallying his supporters around his idea that “our justice system has become lawless. They’re using it now, in addition to everything else, to win elections.”
Yes, these are real Trump quotes.
While today a significant portion of the GOP disseminates the ‘weaponized justice system’ narrative, it originated from none other than Trump himself. Before evolving into the MAGA 2024 re-election rallying call as we now know it, the narrative began as Trump’s primary defense in all four of his criminal cases, not in the physical courts themselves, but instead in what has been dubbed the ‘court of public opinion.’
Trump’s team recognizes that their legal defenses lack viability; they’ve virtually thrown in the towel on winning his cases by traditional means. Instead, they’ve opted to try Trump’s cases in an intangible, yet innovative arena. Their objective is not to convince a judge or jury of Trump’s innocence, but rather a jury of Trump’s peers—the voters—that he’s a victim of a political witchhunt orchestrated by the sitting administration. They believe that “if we can successfully turn a majority of the American public against the justice system, any and all rulings will be automatically nullified.”
Trump’s team is right—it's the public who provide the judiciary its legitimacy and ultimately bring its decisions to fruition.
With this logic, it's perfectly sensible for Trump to render the ‘witchhunt’ a focal point of his 2024 presidential bid, fomenting the outrage and distrust it causes to his advantage. Widespread adoption of the narrative would give Trump two major victories: it would erode faith in the Biden administration and carve him a path to reclaim the presidency. Once back in the Oval Office, Trump could exonerate himself from all accusations.
The court of public opinion approach has made winning the presidency and self-absolution inextricably linked; Trump must win over the jury of voters to re-capture the White House in 2024, and only if successful can he then unilaterally acquit himself on all charges.
This reality explains why Trump has pushed his narrative so emphatically, even using blatant lies to support it. His desperate reversion to using falsehoods demonstrates the second key reason why the ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy is nothing more than well, a conspiracy; its ‘factual’ backing is rooted in misleading or blatantly false information.
Let’s now compare the facts to the specific lies Trump has perpetuated to ‘substantiate’ his fraudulent theory:
1) Joe Biden did not indict Donald Trump.
In response to the filing of his classified documents indictment back in June, Trump told his supporters via TRUTH Social that “Crooked Joe Biden pressed deranged Jack Smith to do this fake indictment on me.”
This claim—that Joe Biden is orchestrating Trump’s indictments—is one of Trump’s most prevalent, yet unequivocally fraudulent pieces of ‘evidence’ that he uses to support the ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory.
As the U.S. justice system stands today, the president holds no ability to direct Justice Department prosecutions. Instead, a grand jury is randomly selected from a group of previous criminal and civil trial jurors to review evidence presented by the plaintiff and determine if said evidence is compelling enough to warrant criminal charges. In all four of Trump’s criminal cases, this is how the charges were brought, by an independent jury of his peers and not Joe Biden, or any other Biden administration member.
Trump also regularly attacks ‘deranged’ Special Counsel Jack Smith over his alleged role as Biden’s ‘hitman’ in the indictments. In reality, special counsels are temporary appointees who fulfill a specific legal duty. Jack Smith was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump, and Garland was appointed by Joe Biden.
Moreover, the president has no direct influence over who the attorney general chooses to investigate, nor the special counsel that carries out the investigation. Upon questioning about his supposed involvement in the Trump indictments, President Biden affirmed his dedication to this precedent: “You’ll notice I have never once, not one single time, suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do, relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge. I’m honest.”
Further discrediting Trump’s accusations against the Biden Administration, many of the prosecution’s key witnesses are former Trump allies and administrators, many of whom have already testified against him before Congress.
Bill Barr, Trump’s ex-attorney general, has stated that Trump committed a “grave wrongdoing” on January 6th, “the claims of (election) fraud were bullsh*t”, and that “as a legal matter, I don’t see a problem with the indictment.”
Assistant to his then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified to the January 6th House Committee that Trump tried to cover up the 2020 election results with claims of fraud out of embarrassment because he “didn’t want people to know that we lost.”
And of course, his own former Vice President Mike Pence famously announced that “the Georgia election was not stolen and I had no right to overturn the election on January 6th.”
Many of Trump’s other former allies—including his campaign manager, White House lawyers, and hand-picked administrative officials—have also testified against him. It’s not just the “radical left thugs” who want accountability for Trump, but his former friends too.
Trump was also in legal trouble long before entering politics.
Preceding his first presidential bid in 2016, Trump had already been the subject of around 4,000 legal actions. As put by former U.S. Secretary of Labor and current University of California Berkeley Professor of Public Policy Robert Reich, “From his fraudulent Trump University scam to federal lawsuits over racist housing discrimination, Trump has spent his life in court because of his own shady behavior.”
In May of 2023, a jury found Trump legally liable for sexual assault and defamation against American journalist and author E. Jean Carroll, ultimately ordering him to pay 5 million dollars in reparations. Immediately after the defamation verdict was rendered, Trump further defamed Carroll on TRUTH Social. He claimed, “I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. This verdict is a disgrace, a continuation of the greatest witch-hunt of all time."
The damages for which Trump was found liable in the Carroll case date back to the mid-nineties, but his ‘witchhunt’ accusations against the government do not. This is because, despite Trump’s exhaustive history of legal woes, he’s never before had the political capital to leverage such a persuasion-dependent defense; now he does and is exploiting his followers’ trust to defame the United States government too.
The entire premise of Trump’s argument—that it’s wrong for the president to exert influence over the Department of Justice—is also deeply hypocritical.
Trump asserts that although he could’ve gone after Biden during his time in the White House he refrained from taking action because “I had too much respect for the office to hit Joe Biden.” However, both Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr champion a view of presidential executive power that outright contradicts this statement known as the ‘unitary executive theory.’
The theory originates from Former Justice Antonin Scalia’s lone dissent in the Morrison v. Olson (1988) ruling, which upheld a 1978 law providing for the appointment of an ‘independent counsel’ by the judicial branch to investigate—and prosecute—high-level government officials accused of committing a federal crime; how topical.
Its proponents argue that Article Two Section One of the Constitution—which reads “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”—grants the president the power to directly control all of the executive branch, including federal agencies such as the Department of Justice. While today Barr and other conservative legal scholars argue that Article Two renders the unitary executive theory a ‘constitutional necessity’, from 1789 until Scalia’s 1988 dissent, the theory ceased to exist.
Trump and Barr argue that the unitary executive theory implicitly grants the president immediate control over the Justice Department’s prosecutions despite their decries of Biden for allegedly doing just that; does this mean that Trump only supports the unitary executive theory if he’s President? It appears so.
Adding to the hypocrisy, Trump even employed the fringe legal theory during his first presidential term to drastically reduce Roger Stone’s sentence, a Trump-ally who’d been convicted of making false statements, obstruction, and witness tampering. In early 2020, Trump denounced Stone’s sentence, forcing four prosecutors to back out of the case and the Justice Department to change the duration of its original recommended sentence. He then congratulated Bill Barr via Twitter for the turnaround by saying, “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.”
To spell everything out, Trump weaponized the Department of Justice to bail out a personal connection. While bailing out an ally doesn’t seem as egregious as jailing a political opponent, the underlying offense is the same. Trump’s actions proved he’s willing to abuse the presidency to further his own goals, the precise infraction for which he’s tirelessly denounced Biden. This hypocrisy in MAGA Republican’s view of the unitary executive theory’s just applications presents yet another inconsistency in the evidence for their case against the government, but I digress.
Notwithstanding the accusations, President Biden did not indict Donald Trump and is in no way ‘puppeteering’ the prosecutions; in fact, he’s embraced a drastically more limited view of the strength in the relationship between the executive and the Department of Justice than Trump did while president, leaving the grand juries and independent counsels to autonomously hold the former president accountable without any degree of executive oversight.
2) Trump’s First Amendment rights are NOT being violated.
Former New York Mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani summed up this falsehood’s premise perfectly in a fuming interview addressing Trump’s January 6th indictment with Newsmax this August. Giuliani began, “I have a chapter in my book called ‘Stand Up to Bullies’, so here’s what I say to Jack Smith...” Then, through clenched teeth, he vigorously shamed the special counsel, shouting, “You don’t get to violate people’s First Amendment rights, Smith!”
But Rudy wasn’t finished: “No matter who the hell you are, no matter how sick you are with Trump Derangement Syndrome! And this isn’t the first time you’ve acted like an unethical lawyer. It should be the last.” He also criticized past cases from Smith’s career and told him to “find another profession because you don’t belong in this one.”
In actuality, not every ‘weaponized justice system’ proponent speaks with Giuliani’s lack of professionalism, but they do all share the belief that Trump’s First Amendment rights are being violated. Trump himself said, “Deranged Jack Smith—he’s the prosecutor, he’s a deranged person—wants to take away my rights under the First Amendment, wants to take away my right of speaking freely and openly.”
Luckily the Harvard-educated lawyer who ‘doesn’t belong’—that would be Jack Smith—anticipated these misconceptions of the January 6th indictment, and deliberately put them to rest at the top of its second page. Smith wrote: “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.”
Smith is correct: after the 2020 election results were certified, Donald Trump filed 62 lawsuits in nine different states and the District of Colombia contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process. All of them failed, and Trump himself had appointed a handful of the judges who dismissed his challenges. In light of these failures, Trump then pursued criminal means of overturning the election, culminating in the January 6th attack seeking to block Congress from certifying the electoral votes. Later in the indictment, Jack Smith lays out the actual crimes Donald Trump is charged with, none of which pertain to what he publicly said about the election, but instead, his behind-the-scenes actions to overturn it.
Trump’s actual alleged criminal behaviors:
The first charge includes pressuring “state legislators and election officials to change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.”
Next Trump and his co-conspirators “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states” to have them “cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.” The indictment then alleges that “the Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.”
Then, furthering the hypocrisy of MAGA Republican’s Justice Department weaponization narrative against the Biden administration, Trump and his co-conspirators “sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.”
The indictment continues, “the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results” by “convincing the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.”
Finally, “the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those (voter fraud) claims.” The ‘disruption’ refers to the January 6th Capitol insurrection.
As laid out in the indictment itself, Trump is not facing criminal charges because he knowingly disseminated false claims of election fraud to the American public in an attempt to subvert the electoral process, but due to his secretive actions to convince election officials to change the outcome in his favor. As Representative and House Oversight Committee Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) explained, “You might believe that your bank owes you some money. You can call the bank and claim that they owe you money, but you don’t have a right to go rob the bank.”
Jack Smith and the Department of Justice recognize that no matter how damaging Trump’s election denialism is to American democracy, the First Amendment protects his claims, even those Trump knew to be false. Accordingly, none of Trump’s alleged criminal behaviors in the indictment concern his public statements following the 2020 election, but rather his private communications with federal and state election officials pressuring them to unilaterally reject the rule of law to forge an illegitimate election victory.
3) Trump is receiving a more than ‘fair’ legal process
From ousted Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to MAGA posterchild and conspiracy theory devotee Marjorie Taylor Greene, many MAGA Republicans contend that the justice system’s ‘two-tiered’ nature renders it incapable of administering justice impartially in Donald Trump’s cases. They believe that by treating Trump like every other alleged criminal—from instating a gag order to taking his mugshot—prosecutors and judges are unjustly targeting his pride and dignity to make a mockery of the proclaimed ‘law and order’ party’s leading presidential candidate. Indeed the justice system’s handling of Trump’s legal procedures thus far constitutes a ‘two-tiered’ system, but not in the way his supporters contend. The justice system is two-tiered, and Trump has been its primary beneficiary.
In many cases, defendants facing crimes comparable to Trump’s in caliber are held in jail pending trial. While jailing an ex-president who’s yet to be convicted on any criminal charges would likely incite January 6th, part two, it’s completely legal to do so. Instead, however, Trump’s been granted the privilege of bond (yes, bond is a privilege, not a right), which almost always carries conditions.
His conditions vary from case to case but cumulatively impose next to no restrictions on everyday life and are objectively lax. For example, Trump continues to enjoy unrestricted travel, enabling him to campaign for the 2024 presidential election as he pleases. Furthermore, Trump’s first indictment in the New York Stormy Daniels hush-money case came in March of 2023, but it wasn’t until August 25th—five months later—that he was first booked and photographed in Fulton County, even though bookings are standard procedure for criminal defendants. It’s tough to draw a concrete comparison for Trump’s pre-trial conditions because they vary drastically according to individual crimes and defendants, but generally, Trump’s enjoyed more freedom than most.
Gag orders—which generally serve to protect witnesses and prevent defendants from tainting jury pools—are the only true conditions Trump faces, and yet he’s violated them on countless occasions. His blatant disregard for gag orders and lack of subsequent punishment for his infractions solidify the fact that he’s received preferential treatment.
Less than 24 hours after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned Trump to not “try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness” in his federal election subversion case in early August, Trump took to TRUTH Social and did exactly that. In an admittedly ambiguous statement, he wrote: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!” This was just the beginning. He then threatened potential witness Mike Pence by saying, “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor of Indiana until I came along and made him VP, has gone to the Dark Side.”
Trump’s conditions in his Fulton County election racketeering case mandated that he refrain from contacting witnesses or co-defendants to discuss case details. He’s also prohibited from directly or indirectly threatening witnesses or co-defendants, inclusive of any such actions through social media posts. This gag order was instated following his repeated attempts to intimidate witnesses during the pre-indictment process, such as his following attack on potential witness Jeff Duncan via TRUTH Social, once again: “I am reading reports that failed former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, will be testifying before the Fulton County Grand Jury. He shouldn’t.” Despite the gag order, Trump has continued pressing his foes. He’s even attempting to demerit the Georgia case’s lead prosecutor District Attorney Fani Willis by making baseless claims that she had an affair with a gang leader whom she’s prosecuting, amongst other indignifying accusations.
In Trump’s New York civil fraud case, Judge Arthur Engoron of Trump’s New York was compelled to issue a gag order barring Trump from making “disparaging remarks” about his law clerk and other courtroom officials following a social media post in which Trump accused Engoron’s clerk of having an inappropriate relationship with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He’s since continued making false statements about Engoron’s associates, including an erroneous attack on Engoron’s wife concerning anti-Trump social media posts he’s falsely attributed to her.
After Engoron issued the gag order, Trump still chose to post the following to TRUTH Social: “Judge Engoron’s Trump-hating wife, together with his very disturbed and angry law clerk, has taken over control of the New York State Witch Hunt Trial aimed at me, my family, and the Republican Party.” By deliberately violating Engoron’s order, Trump’s post epitomizes the domineering “do something about it” tactic employed by autocrats against challenges from those they perceive as less than themselves. Trump is purposely testing the gag order’s ‘limits’ because he recognizes the leniency he’s currently receiving and wants to decipher its true extent.
In all of the aforementioned cases, Trump’s rhetoric tip-toes right up against gag order restrictions, but except for frivolous fines, Trump fails to face genuine accountability, a testament to the true nature of his revered ‘double-standard’ complaints.
Another component of the ‘two-tiered justice system’ claim relates specifically to Trump’s classified documents case. This complaint takes issue with former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden’s possessions of classified documents while under investigation. Clinton, however, cooperated with an FBI investigation into her use of the emails, prompting then FBI Director James Comey—who was a registered Republican for most of his life—to state that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” against her.
Similarly, Biden was approached by National Archives officials in the fall of 2022 seeking access to government records he still had in his possession, some of which were believed to contain classified information. One of Biden’s attorneys, Patrick Moore, responded to the request by saying, “In terms of taking custody of any papers, yes, we are prepared to facilitate whatever access you need to accomplish NARA taking custody of whatever materials it seems appropriate.” Biden and his team followed through, even helping the officials with parking and entering the facility where the documents were stored upon their arrival.
Trump and his base have sought to draw false parallels between Biden and his situation, attributing his prosecution and Biden’s lack thereof to the two-tiered justice system’s supposed bias. However, Sarah Isgur, a former Department of Justice spokesperson, said "one big difference" between Trump's and Biden's legal situation has to do with the discrepancy in their cooperation. Isgur continued, “There would be no classified documents probe if Trump had simply given back the documents after they were discovered at Mar-a-Lago. But for Trump, it's part of his political and legal strategy at this point to fight back on all fronts. Cooperation may have been legally wise a year ago, but at this point, the cake is baked.”
In these statements, Isgur is referring to Trump’s deliberate hiding of and lies regarding the documents discovered in his South Florida residence. After leading the FBI on a tumultuous journey to recover the initially requested documents, Trump signed a statement that all documents had been returned. Just two months later, FBI agents raided Mar-A-Lago and found over 100 additional documents marked as ‘classified’ still in Trump’s possession. Both Hillary and Biden’s compliance with federal officials’ requests for documents directly contradict Trump’s adamant deception, rendering this component of MAGA Republican’s ‘two-tiered’ argument invalid.
To recap the extensive list of lies that comprise Trump’s ‘evidence’ against the government in his ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory:
Joe Biden didn’t indict Trump, but grand juries—which exist specifically to prevent individuals from being prosecuted due to personal vendettas—unanimously decided that evidence presented by the plaintiffs warranted criminal charges; none of Trump’s charges contained by the January 6th indictment take issue with his public lies about the 2020 election, but instead, his behind-the-scenes orchestrating for federal and state election officials to abuse their power to flip the election results in his favor; and lastly, not only is Trump not being mistreated in any of his case proceedings, but he’s actually received preferential treatment when compared to most criminal defendants because he’s a former president. All of these truths constitute yet another definitive reason why MAGA Republican’s ‘weaponized justice system’ narrative is one big lie—every piece of supporting ‘evidence’ is also a lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 3: The numbers don’t lie…
Quantitative data alone may not capture the nuances of a phenomenon revealed through qualitative analysis. However, numerical data provides concise, insightful, and irrefutable evidence; this holds for Trump’s weaponized justice system conspiracy. By examining an empirical analysis of federal cases against elected officials conducted by Zachary Wolf, author of CNN’s ‘What Matters’ newsletter, it becomes clear that the numbers alone negate MAGA Republican’s claims of a partisan justice system.
After acknowledging that the Department of Justice’s ongoing case against Democratic Senator Menendez already complicates Trump’s ‘political witchhunt’ claims, Wolf introduces his study by saying, “Here’s a look at active and recent federal cases against federal lawmakers and governors. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but it is what I could find going back to 2000 in CNN’s coverage and from other news outlets.” Adding to Wolf’s analysis, I independently researched and included which party controlled the presidency at the time of each investigation’s commencement.
Regarding current prosecutions against elected officials, the aforementioned Menendez and Santos cases are the only two examples, with one being against a Democrat and the other a Republican. Hunter Biden was excluded from Wolf’s study given he’s not a federal lawmaker or governor. Nevertheless, it’s worth highlighting that he too is being prosecuted by what the GOP calls the ‘Biden’ DOJ in a gun case that—according to legal analysts across the political spectrum—is “rarely brought as a standalone charge.”
Regarding Congress, Wolf found ten cases against Republicans and eight against Democrats since 2000, including those against Menendez and Santos.
Congressional Republicans prosecuted since 2000:
Former Representative Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska was indicted on October 19, 2021, and found guilty in 2022 of three felonies in a case that centered around shady campaign contributions; Biden DOJ.
Former Representative Duncan Hunter from California was indicted on August 21, 2018, and later sentenced to 11 months in prison for misusing campaign funds, but eventually pardoned by Trump; Trump DOJ.
Former Representative Chris Collins from New York was indicted on August 8, 2018, and later sentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading, but also eventually pardoned by Trump; Trump DOJ.
Former Representative Steve Stockman from Texas was indicted on March 28, 2017, and later sentenced to 10 years in prison for multiple felonies including fraud and money laundering, but pardoned by Trump after serving part of his sentence; Trump DOJ.
Former Representative Michael Grimm from New York was indicted on April 28, 2014, and later sentenced to eight months in prison for tax evasion; Obama DOJ.
Former Representative Rick Renzi from Arizona was indicted on February 22, 2008, and sentenced on June 12, 2013, to three years for corruption. Renzi was pardoned by Trump after serving time; Bush DOJ.
Former Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska was indicted on July 29, 2008, and later convicted by a jury for lying on ethics forms, but the conviction has since been set aside over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct; Bush DOJ.
Former Representative Bob Ney from Ohio was indicted on August 8, 2006, and later sentenced to 30 months after a guilty plea for corruption tied to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff; Bush DOJ.
Former Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham from California was indicted on June 12, 2005, and sentenced on March 3, 2006, to eight years in prison after a guilty plea for bribery. Cunningham was later pardoned by Trump; Bush DOJ.
Former (as of December 1, 2023) Representative George Santos from New York was first indicted on May 10, 2023, on counts of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and false statements. He was then hit with a superseding indictment on October 10, 2023. The House of Representatives expelled Santos on December 1, 2023, via a land-slide bipartisan vote making him the first Congressman to be expelled before being convicted; Biden DOJ.
Congressional Democrats prosecuted since 2000:
Former Representative TJ Cox from California was indicted on August 17, 2022, for fraudulent campaign contributions, and is still awaiting trial; Biden DOJ.
Former Representative Corrine Brown from Florida was indicted on July 8, 2016, and served more than two years for setting up a false charity; Obama DOJ.
Former Representative Anthony Weiner from New York was indicted on May 19, 2017, and later sentenced to 21 months in prison for sexting with a minor; Trump DOJ.
Former Representative Chaka Fattah from Pennsylvania was indicted on July 29, 2015, and later sentenced to 10 years in prison for racketeering, fraud, and money laundering; Obama DOJ.
Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey was first indicted on April 1, 2015, but later acquitted by a judge after a jury deadlocked in a bribery case; Obama DOJ. He was then indicted again on September 22, 2023, for the reasons stated in this article’s first case study; Biden DOJ.
Former Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. from Illinois was indicted on February 15, 2013, and later sentenced to 30 months in prison for misusing campaign funds; Obama DOJ.
Former Representative William Jefferson from Louisiana was indicted on June 4, 2007, and later sentenced to 13 years for corruption and soliciting bribes. Jefferson served multiple years in prison, but many of the charges were later vacated by a judge based on a contradictory Supreme Court decision; Bush DOJ.
Former Representative James Traficant from Ohio was indicted on May 4, 2001, and later sentenced to eight years in prison for corruption. Traficant was subsequently expelled from the House; Bush DOJ.
Regarding federal prosecutions of state governors, Wolf found two cases against Republicans and two against Democrats since the year 2000.
Republican governors prosecuted since 2000:
Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was indicted on January 21, 2014, and was later convicted for bribery and corruption. But in June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned McDonnell's conviction, ruling that the evidence presented at trial did not constitute illegal corruption; Obama DOJ.
Former Illinois Governor George Ryan was indicted on December 17, 2003, and later convicted on racketeering conspiracy, mail and tax fraud, and false statements charges after an FBI sting; Bush DOJ.
Democratic governors prosecuted since 2000:
Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was indicted on April 2, 2009, and later convicted for trying to sell his power to appoint a replacement to Barack Obama’s Senate seat. His sentence was later commuted by Trump; Obama DOJ.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was indicted on May 17, 2004, and later sentenced to more than six years in prison on charges of conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice; Bush DOJ.
In summary, regarding both congressmen and governors:
The Biden administration’s DOJ prosecuted two Republicans and two Democrats.
The Trump administration’s DOJ prosecuted three Republicans and one Democrat. Interestingly, all three Republicans indicted and eventually charged under Trump’s DOJ were later pardoned by Trump himself.
The Obama administration’s DOJ prosecuted two Republicans and five Democrats.
The Bush administration’s DOJ prosecuted five Republicans and three Democrats.
This data reveals multiple unequivocal truths about the DOJ’s falsely-attributed ‘partisanship.’ For starters, regardless of which party controlled the executive branch, on average, the DOJ prosecuted more elected officials from the president’s own party than the opposing party. This is, however, likely circumstantial; presidents wouldn’t deliberately target members of their own party out of deceit either. Still, this fact underscores the DOJ’s adherence to ‘non-partisanship’ and remaining unswayed by presidential input.
Secondly, Trump’s eventual pardoning of all three Republicans investigated and indicted by ‘his’ DOJ perfectly demonstrates why it would be wrong to attribute the decisions of any administration’s DOJ to the president. Trump didn’t orchestrate his Department of Justice’s indictments, because if he had, he wouldn’t have later pardoned those who’d been indicted. It’s simple: Trump, nor any other president from the past few decades, has orchestrated their DOJ’s investigations or indictments; those decisions are made entirely independently by the attorney general appointed by the president.
The last takeaway shifts our focus away from the Department of Justice’s handling of the indictments, instead focusing on the charges themselves. With few exceptions, an overwhelming majority of the charges against elected officials since 2000 have involved money. Whether it be misuse of campaign funds, tax fraud, bribery, fraudulent campaign contributions, or merely ‘corruption,’ our elected officials seem to be obsessed with lining their pockets. This raises concern about their true motives in running for office and how they win elections; more on the dark side of ‘money in Washington’ to come in a future publication…
Regardless of the possible arguments against the qualitative analysis provided by the previous two case studies, it’s impossible to argue with the numbers. When it comes to the Department of Justice’s prosecutions of elected officials over the past two decades, the numbers affirm the DOJ’s unwavering commitment to non-partisanship and undeniable insulation from the president’s will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
Despite the many rebuttals against Trump’s defenses in the court of opinion posed throughout this publication, not all of his claims are meritless.
Objectively, it’s fair to label Trump’s indictment as suspiciously ‘timely.’ However, according to the Department of Justice’s website, investigations involving high-profile individuals typically last several months to a few years before investigators decide whether to bring formal charges. An investigation’s duration often lengthens when the crimes involve multiple individuals, complex schemes, or contentious issues, all of which apply to Trump. Therefore, while Trump’s indictments are interfering with his 2024 re-election campaign, they are not a form of deliberate ‘election interference.’
Running in an election should not impede the administration of justice; the election must take the back seat. There is no rule declaring legal accountability for presidential candidates unlawful or unconstitutional. Trump decided to run amidst his hurricane of legal turmoil, so it’s his responsibility to balance that self-inflicted burden. The indictments’ timings are unfortunate for Trump but reflect the general timeline that comparable investigations take to complete, disproving his accusations of intentional election interference.
Furthermore, Trump’s accusations of bias against his courtroom foes aren’t entirely bogus either. Letitia James—the lead prosecutor in Trump’s New York civil fraud case—made eradicating Trump’s corrupt business empire a cornerstone of her 2018 campaign for Attorney General of New York, even pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.” The same case’s judge, Arthur Engoron, didn’t express James’s level of distaste for the ex-president before the trial’s commencement. However, Trump’s lewd remarks about Engoron’s law clerk and baseless accusations of radicalism against his wife justify any bias Engoron now holds against Trump, a product of Trump’s courtroom misconduct.
However—and this is the take-home point—regardless of any overt or covert biases individuals involved in Trump’s legal proceedings hold against him, the system explicitly blocks personal vendettas from tainting legal outcomes.
Every ruling must be backed by concrete evidence and align with legal precedent; judges simply can’t make ‘because I said so rulings.’ This partially explains the legal process’s long-winded and often tumultuous nature. Due to the criminal doctrine of ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ criminal convictions can only be acquired via logical arguments—backed by factual evidence—that tangibly prove how the defendant’s actions directly violate a specific statute or constitutional clause. Not only does bias in the legal system rarely lead to wrongful prosecutions and incarcerations of innocent people, but its stringent procedures for warranting convictions more often result in guilty criminals walking free.
Way back in 1769, preeminent British Jurist and Justice William Blackstone established the following monumental doctrine that would become the American legal system’s guiding principle for criminal law: “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer (innocent person be convicted).” The U.S. Supreme Court later interpreted Blackstone’s doctrine in an 1895 ruling and upheld that “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” This philosophy’s foundations can even be traced back to Roman law. The doctrine is timeless, and notwithstanding Trump’s rhetoric, it’s still applying in his criminal proceedings too.
While the following contemporary example seems trivial when juxtaposed with Blackstone’s age-old doctrine, take the infamous O.J. Simpson acquittal. It’s ubiquitously agreed upon that O.J. killed his ex-wife; following the ‘not guilty’ verdict in his criminal trial, he was found ‘liable’ for her death and ordered to pay $33.5 million to her family in damages. This is because in criminal court the standard for guilt is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ meaning the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. In civil court, however, the standard for guilt is much lower—it only requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant acted negligently with a 51 percent degree of certainty. In civil court, the burden of proof is on the defendant.
This fundamental principle of American criminal law enables many criminals to walk free and contributes to America’s relatively low wrongful incarceration rate—across various studies, the number ranges from as low as 0.1% up to 5%. Moreover, the leading charges responsible for wrongful convictions are murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes. Given Blackstone’s doctrine, the stakes of Trump’s cases, and the nature of his crimes, it’s extremely unlikely that Trump gets wrongfully convicted as a result of ‘bias’; one could argue, that it’s virtually impossible.
So, Trump’s ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory contains few, yet some valid concerns. However, many ponder how Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric—a seemingly intangible threat—could be so perilous, and in such a tangible manner. The answer is twofold, with one effect posing an immediate danger tailored to his legal proceedings, and the other a more deep-rooted, insidious, widespread change.
Right now, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric against judges, witnesses, and other legal professionals is obstructing the administration of justice in his cases, and permanent support for Trump’s accusations has begun chipping away at our justice system’s legitimacy.
Just a few weeks ago, Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace handed down a paradoxical ruling regarding the 14th Amendment’s ‘disqualification clause.’ Wallace stated that although “Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Section 3’s reference to individuals who have “taken an oath … as an officer of the United States” does not include the presidency.
It doesn’t take a legal genius to see the true reasoning behind Wallace’s non-sensical ruling. The presidency clearly qualifies under Section 3’s ‘any office’ condition, but Wallace needed a legal basis for declining to unilaterally disqualify Trump from her state’s ballot. Wallace likely fears for her and her family’s safety should she make such an unprecedented, yet perfectly legal ruling. Trump’s repeated social media threats to ‘target those who target him’ sabotaged Wallace’s judgment, and who’s Wallace to blame? While I hope the speculation of violence against Wallace is merely cynical thinking, given Trump devotees’ successful penetration of the U.S. capitol on January 6th, a rank-and-file judge’s residence would stand no chance against a fervent MAGA mob.
Public statements from Republican voters also reveal that the ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory’s more treacherous implication has already begun taking effect.
While casually watching an episode of Jubilee’s Middle Ground YouTube series entitled “Former Conservatives vs. Former Liberals,” I was taken aback by many of the former liberals' statements regarding Trump’s indictments. On the question of Trump’s electability, one participant said “I mean, Trump’s not gonna end up in jail. All of that is just, you know, a hit job.” Shortly after, a different participant responded to a comment about Sidney Powell’s recent guilty plea in the Georgia election fraud case by saying, “I also think we shouldn’t take guilty pleas at face value because the justice system really, really incentivizes you to plead guilty.” A third former liberal backed this statement by saying, “Yeah that would be believing the rest of the system, which I don’t believe any of it. I think it’s all corrupt.” This same participant had previously acknowledged her paradoxical support for Trump’s indictments, proclaiming, “The more they do this ‘witch hunt’ after him; ugh! He just keeps getting more and more popular.”
These participants’ immediate and unwavering deferral to Trump’s talking points underscores his dangerous lure. Without a second thought, Trump voters regurgitate his falsehoods, and because they all do it, they derive confidence from collective blindness, reinforcing their faith in his lies.
Furthermore, they choose Trump over the justice system, and by extension, the rule of law, demonstrating early signs of the ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory’s ultimate effect. Trump will ride this blind faith in his rhetoric coupled with distrust in democratic institutions to electoral victory in 2024, permanently cementing his victory over the justice system and eviscerating its legitimacy from the Oval Office itself.
However, the ramifications of Trump’s radical ‘theory’ transcend the modern day. If it successfully infiltrates into the minds of the masses, the justice system will be rendered completely dysfunctional because it operates—at the most fundamental level—on public trust alone. As described in “Issue Two: Preserving Public Trust, Confidence, and Understanding” on the United States Courts’s government website, “the ability of courts to fulfill their mission and perform their functions is based on the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary. Public perceptions of the judiciary are often colored by misunderstandings about the institutional role of the federal courts and the limitations of their jurisdiction, as well as attitudes toward federal court decisions on matters of public interest and debate.”
At the end of the day, the rule of law is nothing but words on paper. Judicial supremacy—the idea that the court’s interpretation of the constitution and rule of law is the official interpretation—enables the courts to effectively perform their duties. The court’s rulings are final and subsequently enforced primarily because the people accept that their rulings as valid and worthy of enforcement. In theory, if the majority of citizens became completely distrustful of the court and unanimously decided to reject its rulings, the justices would be nothing more than talking heads wearing fancy black robes. They could still hand down any ruling they want, but if the people—especially those in the federal (and state-level) executive branch(s), may I add, who constitute the police force—decide simply not to listen, there’s nothing the court’s themselves could do about it. If the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy entirely, America is reduced to a lawless land of anarchy.
While Trump’s primary objective is eroding faith in the Biden administration’s judiciary to win re-election, he’s surreptitiously destroying the entire system’s legitimacy too. If citizens believe that the federal judiciary can be commandeered and weaponized by Biden’s administration, they’ll believe that the same can be done by any presidential administration, portraying America’s justice system as nothing more than a personal tool that presidents use to entrench themselves in power. Under the prevailing assumption that the courts could be weaponized at any moment, the justice system will never regain the public trust they rely on to function, regardless of who is the president.
Take the following excerpt from a The Guardian U.S. article featuring (once again) former U.S. Secretary of Labor and current University of California Berkeley Professor of Public Policy Robert Reich: “Trump’s invective is also having a more insidious effect. By casting the criminal justice system as corrupt and partisan—as part of a conspiracy to prevent him from being re-elected—he is undermining public trust in that system.” The article then goes on to assert that Trump successfully turning the public against the justice system would “seriously jeopardize America’s 244-year experiment in self-government.”
Reich makes the point about the broader implications of Trump’s conspiracy perfectly. Even after Trump exits the political sphere, his legacy of lies will continue deteriorating our democracy. Once again, this is because the conspiracy’s damages are not confined to the Biden administration alone, but instead extend to the entirety of the U.S. justice system. Right now the damage is palpable but not yet irreparable. However, if the public continues buying into the ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory, the system’s legitimacy will soon be depleted and it won’t function at full capacity for a long time. During this time the rule of law will lack any form of substantial backing, rendering America a lawless country.
The ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory has implications far beyond the 2024 election and Trump’s livelihood; it ‘trumps’ both in scope. Whether Trump secures the presidency or faces criminal conviction becomes inconsequential in the face of his rhetoric's malevolent, enduring impact on American democracy—a threat that refuses to recede. With the rule of law in jeopardy and fundamental democratic institutions—such as elections—abandoned, our nation hurtles down an increasingly chaotic and unpredictable path. This grim reality underscores the urgent imperative for American citizens to act decisively to repel the ‘weaponized justice system’ conspiracy theory’s devastating and irreversible ramifications.
Kommentare