The DOJ Must Overturn Its Dangerous Precedent

“You can work so hard not to be a partisan that you’re failing to do your job.”

The president of the United States enjoys a degree of civil immunity from lawsuits while in office. Which is why the 2019 lawsuit brought by American journalist E. Jean Carroll against then-President Donald Trump, allegedly for rape, was postponed until he was out of office. Carroll’s subsequent lawsuit against Trump for defamation faces no such delay. She is currently pursuing millions more in damages against Trump for disparaging remarks he made against her after being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in her initial lawsuit.

The ‘Grab Them By the Pussy ’ president has clearly never heard of ‘vagina dentata,’ but Carroll seems more than willing to drop him a dime.

Notwithstanding a president’s liability — or guilt — imagine if all and sundry were allowed to sue a sitting president, especially one like Trump who has prided himself on abusing the justice system through legal strategies that have enabled him to become a career criminal without accountability. Such lawsuits could become frivolous and distracting from the real business for which a president is elected — that of running the government. In Trump’s case, that’s his circus, his monkey. He revels in the gaslighting spectacles that turn him into a hillbilly folk hero.

That said, there is no immunity explicitly granted to a sitting president in the Constitution — no federal statute — to protect them from civil suits or criminal indictments. There is no law regarding whether (s)he should enjoy immunity from arrest or prosecution for criminal behavior.

It remains legally untested.

Why, then, has the Department of Justice (DOJ) established a precedent — and behaved as if it is actual law — that this country should continue to be ruled by an individual who commits treason and participates in criminal activity blatantly in the public domain, simply because he is president? Does that make you feel safe? Or that such allowances make for stable government? Did anything feel stable in the hands of the ‘stable genius’? Indeed, what is the point of investigations such as that conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Donald Trump and whether Russian interference helped him win the 2016 presidential election if the DOJ subsequently shows it has neither teeth nor balls to act upon their findings?

In that instance, compelling evidence was unearthed to show that Trump committed obstruction of justice — a crime — on multiple occasions and was heavily implicated in criminal matters for which some of his closest associates were sent to prison. Lest we forget, 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American had impeded federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would have likely be indicted on multiple charges.

Compound all of the above, further, with the newly disclosed findings that the DOJ sat on information for a year regarding what transpired in the days and weeks following the Trump-instigated Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Senior officials and the FBI — the principal investigative arm of the DOJ — allegedly, made critical decisions that may have compromised its investigation, not only of Trump but also his co-conspirators in that historic coup attempt. Crucial evidence is likely lost.

All the while, law-abiding citizens were clamoring for action from the DOJ. Having witnessed, in real time, clear treasonous activities at the Capitol, the public already suspected the delay was senseless. Yet, the DOJ, which reputedly represents the People’s interests, remained paralyzed. The FBI did not open its investigation into the fake electors plot until April 2022.

“You couldn’t use the T-word, the T-word being the name of the man who incited a violent insurrection in order to try and overturn an election and stay in office,” says Mehdi Hasan on new Washington Post reporting about the DOJ slow-walking the Trump Jan. 6 investigation.

The DOJ falls under the executive branch and, therein, lies the real issue. The DOJ must not appear to be a president’s personal goon squad — not that that ever stopped Trump. However, to quote a former DOJ official regarding the current DOJ, “You can work so hard not to be a partisan that you’re failing to do your job.”

If the DOJ is not independent enough to protect the country’s best interests from “enemies both foreign and domestic,” who may include the president of the United States — and to live by its own “No one is above the law” credo — what purpose does it ultimately serve?

More importantly, why can’t the DOJ precedent be reversed? Reversals occur regularly in appellate courts. Not all precedents are equal. In recent times, several Supreme Court justices have shown that they are more than willing to overturn long-standing precedents.

Set aside Trump’s lifestyle as a repeated, unrepentant grifter and con man. Overlook the 30,573 pathological lies he told over the four years of his presidency. Discount his kleptocratic, authoritarian, fascist style of governance, for which his cult still clamors since Trump is their messiah of White hope. What is Trump’s prime motive for setting his sights again on the presidency in 2024? To establish his “greatness” among authoritarian rulers of the world? To continue his family’s pattern of self-aggrandizement with blatant conflicts of interest tied to their private businesses? To defer his legal woes and, ultimately, attempt to pardon himself for his many crimes?

Likely, all of the above.

However, prima facie evidence suggests, more importantly, that Trump’s primary motive is to finish what he started in 2016 — to dismantle our Constitution. And what is the predominant mission of the DOJ?

“To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

That mission is incongruent with the DOJ’s dangerous, long-standing precedent, which essentially says, “We will prosecute you because of the treasonous criminal that you are until you’re a candidate for president of the United States — arguably the most powerful person in the world.”

What madness is that? Seriously.

In the wake of his unbridled corruption, which led to Trump’s two presidential impeachments and his now-historic arrest on 37 federal counts of violating the Espionage Act and alleged efforts to impede the investigation, what is the DOJ waiting for to renounce that piece of misguided nonsense?

Former President Donald Trump was arrested and arraigned at a federal courthouse in Miami, where he pleaded not guilty to 37 felony charges around his handling of classified documents. Trump is the first president to ever be arraigned on federal charges, just months after he pleaded not guilty to 34 felony criminal charges in New York in a state investigation involving hush-money payments during the 2016 election campaign. This all comes as the former president, who was impeached twice and is now facing multiple indictments, is now running again for the White House.

Former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper, someone who should know, brands Trump’s behavior for which he was federally indicted a security threat. “It’s just irresponsible action that places our service members at risk, places our nation’s security at risk,” Esper said.

That statement alone from one of Trump’s own is chilling and screams for an immediate and meaningful challenge to the DOJ standard operating procedure in this regard. In fact, should Trump be reelected as president, the key question we should be asking is: Would there even be a Department of Justice?