More stories

  • in

    ‘Dangerous abuse of power’: lawmakers sound alarm over Comey indictment

    For Donald Trump, the indictment of former FBI director and longtime foe James Comey was,“justice in America”. Legal observers and lawmakers see something far more troubling.A former Republican appointed to lead the bureau by Barack Obama and kept on by Trump until he fired him in 2017, Comey was indicted Thursday on charges related to allegedly lying to Congress five years ago during a hearing on the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.The charges were filed in the eastern district of Virginia only after Erik Siebert was forced out as US attorney for reportedly finding no grounds to indict Comey. The justice department replaced him with a Trump loyalist with little prosecutorial experience, Lindsey Halligan, and shortly after, a grand jury indicted Comey on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding.The indictment is the latest sign that the president is making good on his promise “to turn our justice system into a weapon for punishing and silencing his critics”, said Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.“This kind of interference is a dangerous abuse of power. Our system depends on prosecutors making decisions based on evidence and the law, not on the personal grudges of a politician determined to settle scores,” Warner said.Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator and a former federal prosecutor who played a lead role in Trump’s first impeachment, said on X he had “never witnessed such a blatant abuse of the” justice department, calling it “little more than an arm of the president’s retribution campaign”.In a letter to Pam Bondi, the attorney general, Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee described Siebert’s firing and Comey’s indictment as “the latest steps in President Trump’s efforts to reshape the nation’s leading law enforcement agency into a weapon focused on punishing his enemies”.Top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries said it was “crazy to me” that Trump was pursuing a “malicious prosecution” against Comey, given that the FBI chief’s public revival of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use days before the 2016 election is seen as playing a role in Trump’s victory.“These charges are going to be dismissed. James Comey will win in court. But what it reflects is a broader attack on the rule of law that should frighten every single American, whether you’re a Democrat, an independent or a Republican,” he said at the Capitol.Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Trump “has yet again proven his disdain for the principles that have actually made America great”.“By undermining the rule of law at each and every turn, threatening individuals who speak out against him, and arresting, investigating, and prosecuting elected officials of the opposition party and others who displease him, the president and his administration have corrupted our system of justice to turn his campaign of retribution into reality,” he said, adding that Trump’s public push to indict Comey amounts to “a grotesque abuse of presidential power”.Eric Swalwell, the Democratic congressman and member of the House judiciary committee, told CNN: “I promise you, when Democrats are in the majority, we are going to look at all of this, and there will be accountability, and bar licenses will be at stake in your local jurisdiction if you are corruptly indicting people where you cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt on.”Norm Eisen, executive chair of pro-democracy group Democracy Defenders Fund, warned the indictment puts “the safety of every American and our national security itself in danger. This indictment has all the hallmarks of a vindictive and meritless prosecution, worthy only of the totalitarian states the United States used to oppose”.“This matters far beyond James Comey. It’s about every citizen’s right to live free from persecution by their own leaders. Criticizing our leaders is a fundamental right, regardless of how much our leaders don’t like it,” he said.Trump has spent the hours since Comey’s indictment was announced insulting him on Truth Social, calling him “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to” on Thursday night and “A DIRTY COP” on Friday morning.His allies have taken up his argument, if not his tone.“Comey demonstrated complete arrogance and unwillingness to comply with the law,” said Ted Cruz, the Republican senator whose exchange with the former FBI director at a 2020 hearing is the subject of the allegations.Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate judiciary committee, said: “If the facts and the evidence support the finding that Comey lied to Congress and obstructed our work, he ought to be held accountable.”“Say it with me, Democrats: nobody is above the law,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Trump legal defender, echoing a phrase often used by Democrats when Trump and his allies were facing prosecutions before his election victory last year.“We are just getting started today with this indictment,” Davis said. “It’s going to get much worse for the Democrats.” More

  • in

    Judges rule against Trump administration on deporting Guatemalan children and Venezuelans

    The Trump administration has been handed a double defeat by judges in immigration cases, barring the executive branch from deporting a group of Guatemalan children and from slashing protections for many Venezuelans in the US.A federal judge on Thursday ordered the administration to refrain from deporting Guatemalan unaccompanied immigrant children with active immigration cases while a legal challenge plays out.Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee based in Washington DC, kept in place an earlier judicial block on the policy, sharply criticizing the administration’s unproven assertion that the children’s parents wanted them deported.The administration attempted to deport 76 Guatemalan minors being held in US custody in a surprise move in the early morning on 31 August, sparking a lawsuit and emergency hearing that temporarily halted the move.The Department of Justice lawyer Drew Ensign initially said that the children’s parents had requested they be returned home, but the department later withdrew that claim. Reuters published a Guatemalan government report saying that most parents of the roughly 600 Guatemalan children in US custody could not be contacted and of those who could, many did not want their children forced back to the country.Kelly said the justice department’s explanation “crumbled like a house of cards” in light of that report.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the justice department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Kelly said some children were unexpectedly taken from their shelter beds in the middle of the night, driven to the airport and, in some cases, put on planes, leaving them worried and confused. At one shelter in McAllen, Texas, a young girl was so scared that she vomited, Kelly wrote, citing evidence submitted in the case.Immigrant children who arrive at US borders without a parent or guardian are classified as unaccompanied and sent to federal government-run shelters until they can be placed with a family member or foster home, a process outlined in federal law.Meanwhile, late on Wednesday, a federal appeals court rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to set aside a judge’s order holding that it unlawfully rolled back temporary protections from deportation granted to 600,000 Venezuelans living in the US.A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals declined to pause a judge’s 5 September ruling holding that the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, lacked the authority to end the program, known as temporary protected status or TPS.“Vacating and terminating Venezuela’s TPS status threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray, and exposed them to a substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families, and loss of employment,” the panel said.The justice department has said that if a stay were denied, it might take the case to the US supreme court, which in May put on hold an earlier injunction Chen issued and cleared the way for the administration to end temporary protections for about 348,000 of the Venezuelans at issue.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the DHS, in a statement said the ninth circuit’s ruling “is nothing short of open defiance against the US Supreme Court”. The administration had contended the supreme court’s May decision meant Chen’s latest ruling had to be similarly paused.“Luckily for us, and for all Americans, the Ninth Circuit is not the last stop,” McLaughlin said.TPS is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. It provides eligible migrants with work authorization and temporary protection from deportation. The program was created in 1991 and extended under Joe Biden to cover about 600,000 Venezuelans and 521,000 Haitians. Noem reversed the extensions, saying they were no longer justified, prompting legal challenges.Chen’s decision had also applied to 521,000 Haitians. The administration did not ask the ninth circuit to put that part of Chen’s ruling on hold as a second judge in New York had already blocked the revocation of the Haitians’ status. More

  • in

    Georgia supreme court ends Fani Willis bid to reverse removal from Trump case

    The Georgia supreme court on Tuesday declined to hear Fani Willis’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling disqualifying the Fulton county prosecutor from prosecuting Donald Trump’s election interference case.In a 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court let stand the lower court order disqualifying Willis from the racketeering and election interference case that initially snagged 19 defendants, including Donald Trump, in 2023.Georgia’s appeals court removed Willis from the case in December 2024, citing the “appearance of impropriety” created by her relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade.The appellate decision in effect established a new standard in Georgia law for removing a prosecutor from a case, which the Georgia supreme court’s decision allows to stand without review.Trump, while president, is protected from state-level prosecutions, but the other remaining defendants are still subject to prosecution. The case will be reassigned by the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, but it is unclear whether Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the council, will be able to find a prosecutor willing to take up the politically fraught, legally complicated case.He said he expected the formal process to begin within a month or so. Skandalakis, a district attorney elected by conservative voters outside of metro Atlanta may simply choose to drop the charges against the remaining 14 defendants, rather than risk the backlash of their constituents and the increasingly vocal and retributive ire of the president. But the primary consideration was a matter of capacity, Skandalakis said.“I have to start looking, today, for a prosecutor to take this case,” Skandalakis said. “You kind of narrow it down to resources – who has the staff – and then you kind of branch out. There are some offices that are too small, that are overrun with cases.”Willis and attorneys for Trump and other defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 loss to Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. More

  • in

    US right capitalizes on fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina

    The random and unprovoked killing of a young woman in North Carolina several weeks ago has become a viral video, a political football, and a powerful rightwing talking point – even as the horror and anger her death has provoked obscures what experts say is a vital story about the failures of the American mental health system.The alleged perpetrator, Decarlos Brown Jr, 34, has a long history of problems with the law and mental health issues. He had been arrested 14 times and served a five-year stint for armed robbery. Brown had also come to believe that there was something alien and malevolent inside him – a “man-made material”, he told people, possibly a computer chip implanted by the government that was fighting him for control of his body.Brown was riding a light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month when he allegedly stood up with a pocket knife, abruptly stabbed a nearby woman, then walked away. The victim, Iryna Zarutska, was a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who worked at a pizza parlor and hoped to become a veterinary assistant. Haunting security-camera footage shows her curled up weakly as she bleeds to death in her restaurant uniform. In a phone call from jail after his arrest, Brown, who reportedly has schizophrenia, told his sister that Zarutska had been trying to read his mind.Initially a tragedy covered by mostly local news outlets, Zarutska’s death has grown in recent days into a cause célèbre on the American right. In more centrist conservative accounts, Zarutska’s killing is a symbol and symptom of a lax criminal justice system that should never have allowed Brown to freely walk the streets. In more inflammatory, far-right discourse, the story of a formerly incarcerated Black man’s killing of a defenseless blond woman has become racist fodder for sinister theories about white persecution and Black criminality.On X, Elon Musk has tweeted or retweeted dozens of posts about the story, many arguing that the media would have covered the story more aggressively if a white person had attacked a Black victim, and contrasting it with the media attention given to cases like that of Daniel Penny, a white man who was arrested in New York in 2023 for killing an unhoused Black man with mental illness on the subway in what he described as self-defense. (He was acquitted in trial.)Viral content online has claimed that Brown targeted Zarutska specifically because she was white, though as of now there is no evidence that he did. Some rightwing accounts have noted with pointed irony that a photo that has circulated of Zarutska appears to show a Black Lives Matter poster in the background. Musk and others have pledged money to a campaign to put up George Floyd-style murals of her across American cities.Outrage has reached the highest levels of the US government. Donald Trump has declared on social media that the “ANIMAL who so violently killed the beautiful young lady from Ukraine, who came to America searching for peace and safety, should be given a ‘Quick’ (there is no doubt!) Trial, and only awarded THE DEATH PENALTY.”View image in fullscreenJD Vance, the vice-president, called Brown a “thug” and noted his lengthy arrest record. “It wasn’t law enforcement that failed,” Vance wrote. “It was weak politicians … who kept letting him out of prison.” Earlier this year Brown was arrested for allegedly making unfounded 911 calls, and released after signing a written promise to reappear in court.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, has announced federal charges against Brown – despite the strong possibility that Brown is mentally ill and could thereby be deemed not culpable by reason of insanity, and despite the fact that the federal government would not typically become involved in the prosecution of a tragic but random act of local violence.Emmitt Riley, a professor of politics and African American studies at Sewanee, the University of the South, said that Zarutska’s death is an undeniable tragedy but has become politicized in a way with obvious racial overtones.“Donald Trump has a history of calling for the death penalty, in particular for Black and brown people,” he said – most famously in the case of the Central Park Five, a group of teenagers who were imprisoned for the 1989 rape of a woman jogging in New York. Although they were later exonerated, Trump has never apologized.Experts on mental health and criminal justice believe the true story of this case is less sensational than tragic, and indicative of a fraying American mental health system that failed to protect Zarutska in part because it first failed to protect Brown from himself.“When I hear people define this as [solely] a criminal justice problem or lack of being ‘tough on crime,’ I think: ‘Let’s be real. Let’s define the problem as what it is,’” Sheryl Kubiak, the dean of the school of social work at Wayne State University, said. “We have a mental health crisis in this country, and we need to address it with appropriate mental health resources.”Jails, she said, were not created for treating mental illness, nor equipped to do so.Although Brown had a long history of reckless behavior, his mental problems seemed to get worse after he was released from prison in 2020, members of his family have told the news media. He walked around talking to himself and was given to unexpected angry outbursts.Like many people with seeming severe mental illness, Brown was offered treatment but resisted accepting it. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia, his mother told ABC, but refused to take medication. She and other members of the family repeatedly tried to get him help. At one point she asked a hospital to admit him but was told, she said, that the hospital could not “make” a person accept treatment. At another point a mental health facility kept him for in-patient treatment but released him after two weeks.Kubiak and other experts note that cases like Brown’s illustrate two longstanding and overlapping debates about the treatment of mental illness. One concerns “institutionalization”, the treatment of serious mental illness in dedicated institutions segregated from larger society, and the other concerns “involuntary” treatment of those who need treatment but refuse it.In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States built large, then state-of-the-art mental hospitals across the country to house and treat patients. But institutionalization fell out of favor in the 1950s and 1960s, due to changing cultural and legal attitudes, advances in medication, and a fear that institutions were overused and risked abuse. Mental health practices instead emphasized treating people within their communities. Civil libertarians also lobbied for the bar for involuntary treatment to be stricter. Many of the hospitals were shuttered.View image in fullscreenYet the government has not properly funded and organized a system to replace the older one, Jeffrey Swanson, a sociologist and professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, said. Where someone with severe mental health problems might have previously had access to dedicated, long-term treatment facilities, they are now likely to end up in a revolving door of jails, ERs, and psychiatric wards with too many patients and too few beds.“Now we have probably more people with serious mental illnesses on any given day in one of our massive big city jails, like Cook county jail in Chicago or the Los Angeles county jail or Rikers Island [in New York], than we ever had in these asylums,” he said. “And it’s really a scandal.”Some progressives are opposed to involuntary treatment, casting it as a violation of consent. Mental health experts tend to take a more nuanced view, Swanson said, particularly in the case of patients whose illnesses are severe and defined by “anosognosia,” a term that means that someone doesn’t recognize that they are ill.A well-known argument for involuntary treatment, he added, says: “We wouldn’t let our grandmother with Alzheimer’s disease wander around and sleep in the subway just because she doesn’t know that she needs treatment; that’d be inhumane. So why do we tolerate that for young adults with schizophrenia?”His own opinion, he said, is complicated by the inadequacies of the current mental health system. “If you’re going to coerce someone into treatment for their own good, you have to have the system capacity to provide those services. I mean, otherwise, it’s really ironic to say: ‘We’re going to force you into treatment that doesn’t exist. We’re going to force you, but we don’t have a bed for you.’”Zarutska was buried in Charlotte on 27 August. Family members who were also in the US as refugees attended the funeral, but her father, who cannot leave Ukraine due to wartime restrictions, had to watch by video call.The Ukrainian embassy offered to help repatriate her body for burial, according to an uncle who spoke to People, but her family chose to inter her in the US; she had fallen “so much in love with the American dream”, he said.Her death is something “I would wish on no one,” Riley, the professor of political science, said. Yet until the US has better systems for treating mental health, “this will be a repeated cycle.” More

  • in

    The ‘bizarre’ referral of the US housing finance agency chief to oust Lisa Cook

    The head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency embraced a highly unusual process to accuse Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, of committing mortgage fraud, former officials and experts have said. One former high-ranking official called the director’s involvement in a criminal referral “bizarre”.William Pulte, a businessman and major GOP donor whom Donald Trump appointed to head the powerful housing agency earlier this year, has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud by misrepresenting her homes as a primary residence, potentially securing more favorable mortgage rates. The justice department formally opened a criminal investigation into whether Cook committed fraud and has issued subpoenas related to the transaction. Cook’s lawyers have called the discrepancies a “clerical error” and she has denied any wrongdoing.Trump has used those accusations as the basis to try to fire Cook, who has strongly denied the allegations and is contesting her firing in court. Pulte has also made similar referrals against New York attorney general Letitia James and California senator Adam Schiff, both political rivals of Trump.Investigations into mortgage fraud are usually handled by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s office of inspector general (OIG), an agency watchdog, staffed with lawyers and agents with an expertise in investigating crimes, including mortgage fraud. The OIG is then the office that typically makes a criminal referral.“It’s very bizarre for Pulte to be the one making a criminal referral himself and it’s not coming from the IG’s office,” said Janell Byrd-Chichester, a former chief of staff at FHFA. “If we thought there might be criminal activity, that would go to the IG for review and a determination and the IG would be making any referral, not the agency.”Three other former officials across the inspector general’s office and FHFA said Pulte’s involvement was unusual.After assuming his position earlier this year, Pulte started an FHFA hotline to report waste, fraud and abuse. The move seemed strange to some in the office of the inspector general, which already has its own hotline to report fraud, according to a person familiar with the matter.“It’s certainly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the director of FHFA to make a single request to the justice department that someone be investigated for alleged mortgage fraud,” said Guy Cecala, the executive chair of Inside Mortgage Finance, an information company and research firm that has covered the mortgage market for more than four decades. “Historically, we haven’t seen a lot of people prosecuted for mortgage fraud in terms of misrepresenting their occupancy on a house.”While the FHFA inspector general would take referrals from FHFA, their investigations were typically walled off from FHFA, former officials said. The separation helped protect the privacy of borrowers and their sensitive mortgage information. The inspector general’s office would typically only pursue cases that resulted in substantial losses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that are regulated by FHFA.The extent of the FHFA inspector general’s involvement in Cook’s mortgage is unclear. Also uncertain is whether Pulte requested that officials at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac pull Cook’s loan documents – highly sensitive information – or whether the claims are based entirely on publicly available mortgage information. In Schiff’s case, the OIG appears to have at least requested documents about his home loans, according to the Los Angeles Times.“Your inquiry relates to public statements made by the Director of FHFA. I recommend that you reach out to FHFA’s media shop,” a spokesperson for the FHFA inspector general said in a statement. “FHFA OIG does not comment on the existence or non-existence of investigations conducted by this office.” FHFA did not return a request for comment.Pulte has refused to say why his agency started its inquiry into Cook. There is widespread belief that the decision was politically motivated because Trump wants to remove her from the Federal Reserve board in order to stack it with his appointees.Understanding the origins of Pulte’s inquiry is significant because misrepresenting occupancy on a mortgage application does not appear to be uncommon. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, and at least three members of Trump’s cabinet have listed multiple places as their primary residence, but have not faced the kind of scrutiny Cook has.“Issues with Cook’s loan file weren’t caught in some routine audit or the like. No one ever goes back and examines loan applications on performing loans for occupancy fraud; that would entail expenses for no benefit,” Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote in a post on the blog Credit Slips. “Instead, the only way anyone would have noticed a problem with Cook’s loan application is that Pulte, as head of FHFA, directed Fannie or Freddie to pull her application. That is unheard of.”Furthermore, Pulte had referred Cook for a criminal inquiry without presenting bona fide evidence of a crime.“If Cook broke her promise about property use (and that isn’t clear), all that shows is a breach of contract,” Levitin wrote in a separate blog post in August. “For it to be fraud, she would have to have never intended to perform the promise in the first place. Pulte has no evidence whatsoever about Cook’s intent at the time she took out the mortgage. He hasn’t even shown a breach of contract, much less common law fraud, not to speak of a federal criminal law violation.”Observers have said it was also unusual for a loan to attract scrutiny if it was being paid. “This case is unusual because I’m not aware of any actual loss that’s occurred. I’m assuming neither of these mortgages are in default. I’m assuming neither of the mortgages in question are underwater,” Cecala said.After the financial crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began conducting random sampling on performing mortgages to see if there were issues that could put them at risk. But in cases where they found issues, it was rare that they would seek criminal punishment for the borrowers.“Normally in those cases – and again this is just precedent – Fannie and Freddie don’t get involved in the prosecution or even referring it to the justice department,” Cecala said. “They’ll just say, we see a problem with this mortgage and they just require the lender who made the loan to buy the loans back out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities.” More

  • in

    Court tosses Trump lawsuit against Maryland judges over US deportations

    A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit filed by the Trump administration earlier in the summer against all 15 judges serving on Maryland’s federal district court – a case that opposed pausing some deportations from the state.In a 37-page ruling, US district judge Thomas Cullen of Virginia’s western district – who was nominated and confirmed to his position during Donald Trump’s first presidency – wrote that “any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss”.“To hold otherwise,” Cullen added, “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”The Trump administration had challenged an order issued by Maryland’s chief district judge that temporarily barred the government from deporting undocumented immigrants for two business days if they filed challenges to their detention. Trump’s justice department argued that the order exceeded the court’s authority and violated federal law.But Cullen, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020 and was assigned the case because all Maryland district judges were named as defendants, wrote that the judges were “absolutely immune” from lawsuits over their judicial actions. And Cullen said that instead of suing, the administration should have challenged the order though other legal channels, such as appealing against the order.“As much as the executive fights the characterization, a lawsuit by the executive branch of government against the judicial branch for the exercise of judicial power is not ordinary,” Cullen wrote.“In their wisdom, the constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the judiciary’s constitutional role.”He added that if the administrations’s arguments “were made in the proper forum, they might well get some traction”. But he said that “as events over the past several months have revealed, these are not normal times – at least regarding the interplay between the executive and this coordinate branch of government”.It was “no surprise that the executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely”, Cullen’s ruling said.“Instead of appealing any one of the affected … cases or filing a rules challenge with the judicial Council, the executive decided to sue – in a big way.”In a footnote, Cullen also criticized the Trump administration’s attacks on judges across the country throughout his second presidency, which began in January.“Over the past several months,” he said, Trump administration officials had described federal district judges around the country as “left-wing”, “liberal” “activists”, “radical”, “politically minded”, “rogue”, “unhinged”, “outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional”, “[c]rooked,” and worse.“Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate,” Cullen wrote.Among the judges named in the lawsuit was US district judge Paula Xinis, who ruled in April that the Trump administration had unlawfully deported Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador and ordered the US to return him. More

  • in

    Sentence before verdict: Trump’s attack on Obama is straight out of Alice in Wonderland | Austin Sarat

    Almost every American knows that in our legal system, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent. The burden is on the government to overcome that presumption and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Those simple but powerful maxims were once a source of national pride. They distinguished the United States from countries where government officials and political leaders branded the opponents guilty before they were charged with a crime or brought to trial.In Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, the Alice-in-Wonderland world of “sentence first-verdict afterwards” came to life in infamous show trials. Those trials lacked all the requisites of fairness. Evidence was manufactured to demonstrate the guilt of the regime’s enemies. Show trials told the story the government wanted told and were designed to signal that anyone, innocent or not, could be convicted of a crime against the state.So far, at least, this country has avoided Stalinesque show trials. But the logic of the show trial was very much on display this week in the Oval Office.In a now-familiar scene, during a meeting with the Philippines president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Donald Trump went off script. He turned a reporter’s question about the unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal into an occasion to say that former president Barack Obama had committed “treason” by interfering in the 2016 presidential election.“He’s guilty,” Trump asserted, “This was treason. This was every word you can think of.”Speaking after the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president said: “Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton.”Republican congressmen and senators, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who investigated allegations of Obama’s involvement five years ago, found nothing to support them. But none of that mattered to the president on Tuesday.As Trump put it: “Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people. Obama’s been caught directly.” Not hiding his motives, Trump said: “It’s time to start after what they did to me.”Guilt first. Charges, trials and other legal niceties come later.This is American justice, Trump-style. He wants no part of the long and storied tradition in which presidents kept an arms-length relationship with the justice department and did not interfere with its decisions about whether and whom to prosecute for crimes.What Trump said about Obama is, the New York Times notes, “a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history”. Putting one of his predecessors on trial also would take some of the sting out of Trump’s own dubious distinction of being the only former president to have been convicted of a felony.Some may be tempted to write off the president’s latest Oval Office pronouncements as an unhinged rant or only an effort to distract attention from Trump’s Epstein troubles. But that would be a mistake.A recent article by the neuroscientist Tali Sharot and the law professor Cass Sunstein helps explain why. That article is titled: “Will We Habituate to the Decline of Democracy?”Sharot and Sunstein argue that the US is on the cusp of a dangerous moment in its political history. They say that we can understand why by turning to neuroscience, not to political science.Neuroscience teaches us that “people are less likely to respond to or even notice gradual changes. That is largely due to habituation, which is the brain’s tendency to react less and less to things that are constant or that change slowly.”In politics, “when democratic norms are violated repeatedly, people begin to adjust. The first time a president refuses to concede an election, it’s a crisis. The second time, it’s a controversy. By the third time, it may be just another headline. Each new breach of democratic principles … politicizing the justice system … feels less outrageous than the last.”Americans must resist that tendency. To do so, Sharot and Sunstein argue, we need “to see things not in light of the deterioration of recent years but in light of our best historical practices, our highest ideals, and our highest aspirations”.In the realm of respect for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, we can trace those practices, ideals and aspirations back to 1770, when John Adams, a patriot, practicing lawyer and later the second president of the United States, agreed to defend British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.Adams did so because he believed that everyone, no matter how reprehensible their act, was entitled to a defense. That principle meant that people needed to learn to withhold judgment, to respect evidence and to hear both sides of a story before making up their minds.That was a valuable lesson for those who would later want to lead our constitutional republic, as well as for its citizens. The trial of the British soldiers turned out, as the author Christopher Klein writes, to be “the first time reasonable doubt had ever been used as a standard”.Fast forward to 1940, and the memorable speech of the attorney general, Robert Jackson, to a gathering of United States attorneys. What he said about their role might also be said about the president’s assertions about Obama.Jackson observed that US attorneys had “more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America”. A prosecutor, he explained, “can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations … The prosecutor can order arrests … and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.”Sound familiar?The president is not a prosecutor, but since he has returned to power, President Trump has behaved and encouraged those in the justice department to ignore Jackson’s warnings that a prosecutor should focus on “cases that need to be prosecuted” rather than “people that he thinks he should get”. Targeting people, not crimes, means that the people prosecuted will be those who are “unpopular with the predominant or governing group” or are “attached to the wrong political views, or [are] personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself”.Jackson restated a long-cherished American ideal, namely that those with the power to ruin lives and reputations should seek “truth and not victims” and serve “the law and not factional purposes”.Since then, presidents of both parties, in even the most controversial cases and those involving allies or opponents, have heeded Jackson’s warnings. They have said nothing about pending cases, let alone announcing that it’s time “to go after” people.But no more. The justice department seems ready and willing to do the president’s bidding, even though there is no evidence that Obama did anything wrong in regard to the 2016 election. In addition, he may have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did in his official capacity.Trump’s attack on the “traitorous” Obama may be predictable. But it should not be acceptable to any of us.Sharot and Sunstein get it right when they say, “To avoid habituating ourselves to the torrent of President Trump’s assaults on democracy and the rule of law, we need to keep our best practices, ideals, and aspirations firmly in view what we’ve done.” We need “to compare what is happening today not to what happened yesterday or the day before, but to what we hope will happen tomorrow”.To get to that world, it is important to recall the words of John Adams and Robert Jackson and work to give them life again.

    Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty More

  • in

    US judge rejects Trump administration’s bid to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

    A US federal judge on Wednesday denied a justice department request to unseal grand jury transcripts related to a criminal investigation of the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein in south Florida from the mid-2000s.The move is the first ruling in a series of attempts to release more information on the case by Donald Trump’s administration, which has been mired in a scandal in recent weeks, after the justice department announced it would not be releasing any additional files related to the Epstein case – despite earlier promises from the president and the the US attorney general, Pam Bondi.The justice department’s memo sparked renewed focus on and scrutiny of Trump’s past ties to Epstein and drew backlash from some Trump supporters and conservative commentators.On Friday, the justice department filed a motion asking the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts related to the federal investigations into Epstein in 2005 and 2007, according to court documents.But on Wednesday, US district judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that the department’s request in Florida did not fall into any of the exceptions to rules requiring grand jury material be kept secret.Rosenberg wrote that the court’s “hands are tied” and said the government had not requested the grand jury’s findings for use in a judicial proceeding, pointing out that district courts in the US are largely prohibited from unsealing grand jury testimony except in very narrow circumstances.“Eleventh circuit law does not permit this court to grant the government’s request,” Rosenberg wrote. “The court’s hands are tied – a point that the Government concedes.”The justice department still has pending requests to unseal transcripts in Manhattan federal court related to a later indictment brought against Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial, and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. More