Where Is This Leading?

Late today, Donald Trump’s acting attorney general fired the prosecutors who worked on the January 6 and classified documents prosecutions against Trump. Acting Attorney General James McHenry told the people he fired that he “does not trust” them “to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.”

An administration can’t fire career federal prosecutors based on their perceived political loyalties. Prosecutors can be fired based on their conduct or performance if they are given notice, an opportunity to improve, and sufficient time to do so. But that’s not what happened here. They were fired because they were assigned to prosecute Donald Trump.

The real witch hunt is here. And it’s a warning to all other federal employees to mind their loyalty if they want to keep their jobs. That’s the point. Trump knows he can’t lawfully fire these people in this manner. He wants to make the point that he’s willing to do it, in hopes others will stay in line.

Also today, the interim U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., who identifies himself in his Twitter bio as “@EagleEdMartin” has launched a probe into the 250+ January 6 cases the office prosecuted. His announcement follows Trump’s day one executive order on “weaponization of the federal government” that directed the attorney general to search out what he characterized as misbehavior in Biden’s DOJ and asked for “recommendations for appropriate remedial actions.” In an email to staff earlier today, Martin called the cases “a great failure for our office” and said they need to get to “the bottom of it.”

“You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,” the letter said, according to parts read to NBC News. “The proper functioning of government critically depends on the trust superior officials place in their subordinates. Given your significant role in prosecuting the president, I do not believe that the leadership of the department can trust you to assist in implement the president's agenda faithfully.”

This is an extraordinary step for a U.S. Attorney to take. My former U.S. Attorney colleague from Michigan and #SistersInLaw podcast cohost Barb McQuade characterized it like this, “Prosecutors did nothing wrong in bringing obstruction cases just because the Supreme Court subsequently interpreted the statute to require a connection to documents, despite no such limitation in the text. Besides, Martin has all the public records he needs to determine who participated in these good faith prosecutions. By assigning supervisors to conduct an internal investigation, he creates an impression of misconduct. Trump and his allies often complain about witch hunts. This is what a witch hunt really looks like.” These cases were indicted by grand juries. Judges accepted guilty pleas in open court or juries convicted the defendants. Some of the cases were affirmed on appeal. Going back to revisit them now is politics in a place where it doesn’t belong, the Justice Department.

There are ways to assess and punish misconduct by prosecutors. The Office of Professional Responsibility investigates allegations of professional misconduct involving Department attorneys. DOJ’s inspector general has jurisdiction to look at violations of fraud, abuse, and integrity laws that govern DOJ employees, and their investigations can lead to criminal prosecution or civil or administrative action in appropriate cases. Those offices intervene in cases where they see reason to open an investigation. But political appointees in a new administration don’t have the authority to fire prosecutors just because they worked on cases they were assigned to. It’s an abrupt capture of the Justice Department by the White House and deeply alarming. As with the inspectors general, Trump is violating the law to test just how far he can go before there is opposition.

Past history suggests Trump backs down when challenged forcefully. The question in this critical moment is whether the people with the power to do so, largely on Capitol Hill and in the courts, will stand in his way. The rule of law is meant to be a shield for democracy in moments like this. But Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate’s inspector general caucus, offered this weak tea: “There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I’d like further explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress.” Grassley, who proudly announced he had joined the Senate’s IG caucus, saying, “Inspectors General play an essential role in protecting taxpayer dollars and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the executive branch. I rely heavily on these independent watchdogs when carrying out my constitutional responsibility of oversight, and I’m glad to join Senator Ernst’s effort to support their invaluable work,” didn’t announce any intent to support them now that push has come to shove.

Tonight I had intended to write more about Trump’s pardon of the January 6 defendants, and these new developments highlight the point I wanted to make: the outrage here is the attack on democracy.

Much of the initial outburst following the pardons came from people in law enforcement and others who were upset that the pardons meant there were no consequences for assaulting police officers. That was certainly one impact of the pardons, and deeply disturbing. But it shouldn’t obscure the fact that Trump pardoned people who deliberately attacked democracy itself and that they did so on his behalf. The goal of January 6 was to keep Trump, who had lost the election, in power. He rewarded the people who attacked democracy with pardons. The lawlessness is front and center in the pardons, as it is in firing the IGs and in firing DOJ employees. It’s all about loyalty to Trump, and you can’t have that and a functional democracy living in the same room.

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which supported Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024 criticized him because the pardons included violent rioters who attacked police officers. “Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on individuals or public safety,” the FOP’s joint statement with the International Association of Police Chiefs said. “They are attacks on society and undermine the rule of law … When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence.”

The point about police is well-taken. And even more so when we’re talking about an attack on democracy.

Trump did an interview last week with Sean Hannity on Fox News. He explained the pardons like this: “They were in there for three and a half years … treated like nobody’s ever been treated. So badly. Treated like the worst criminals in history … The other thing is this: some of those people with the police, true. But they were very minor incidents. They get built up by a couple of fake guys who are on CNN all the time.” The whole narrative at that point was about police and pardons; democracy had been forgotten.

We cannot allow Trump, or even well-intentioned concerns about attacks on police, to obscure what these crimes and these pardons were really about. Motive is not an element the government has to prove for most federal crimes, but here, the motive was apparent throughout. We understood it when Trump told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by, when he summoned his followers to Washington, D.C., on January 6, tweeting, “will be wild,” and when he spoke to them at the rally on the Ellipse, claiming the election had been stolen from him and telling them, “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

That same level of lawlessness and disregard for democracy is back. It’s happening in front of us again. In 2020 the voters went to work, and the courts held. Trump is trying to ensure that doesn’t happen again.

What can you do? Don’t be quiet. Talk with people about why it isn’t okay for a president to routinely operate by breaking the laws. And know it for what it is: Trump could have fired the IGs by giving Congress 30 days notice of his reasons, and he could have transferred prosecutors into minor roles like prosecuting misdemeanors in the District of Columbia. Instead he chose to proceed lawlessly, threatening anyone to tell him he can’t. And, it’s not just the outright lawlessness. We’re seeing the fallout from executive orders now, and we know that it’s as widespread as stopping treatment for cancer patients and canceling job offers made to people who wanted to become public servants. It’s time for Americans, even the ones who supported Trump, to raise their voices and say they didn’t vote for any of this, before their voices don’t matter at all. For us here, we can provoke those conversations, and of course, we have to write to our elected officials and make sure they know we’re watching what they’re doing at this critical moment.

This video, posted by Aaron Rupar, is from today. Trump, again, is contemplating whether he can run a third time. It’s not a joke; it is clearly something that stays on his mind. The Senate abdicated its constitutional obligation to engage in advise and consent and confirmed Pete Hegseth. Now, Trump is violating laws regarding who he can fire from government service and how he can do so. If there is no push back, where does it all end? Where is this leading? I think we know the answer.

We’re in this together,

Joyce