The indictment of James Comey, ex-FBI head, by Trump’s Justice Department has been met with broad skepticism, due both to the questionable nature of its instigation and the notable fragility of the justification.
Yet, Lindsay Halligan, the US attorney responsible for this indictment, appears undisturbed. As a matter of fact, she promptly shifted focus to her subsequent objective: indicting Letitia James, New York’s Attorney General, on similarly doubtful allegations, a feat she achieved on Thursday.
Concurrently, Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, is spearheading an extensive undertaking he anticipates will lead to indictments for prominent Democratic factions and benefactors for purportedly backing “left-leaning terrorism.” It seems equally implausible that this will endure scrutiny in the legal arena.
Observing this situation – the employment of the US Justice Department as a weapon, with initiatives that appear mostly baseless or destined to fail – I am reminded of a saying coined by Steve Bannon during Donald Trump’s initial term as President. Describing how the right could counteract the conventional media, Bannon indicated that they should “flood the zone with crap.”
Trump and Miller, it would seem, are endeavoring to take aim at the opposition by inundating the area with rubbish. They intend to initiate one specious inquiry and legal action after another. Should one falter, they will swiftly transition to the following – frequently, perhaps, targeting the very individuals previously charged. (There is already dialogue within MAGA circles regarding additional potential charges against Comey, and a separate US attorney’s office is scrutinizing James on distinct matters.)
The paramount objective is not primarily to secure convictions. Trump’s group would undeniably welcome such results, yet if their intent were to construct cases capable of withstanding legal challenges, they would proceed considerably differently.
Instead, the purpose is to subject Trump’s adversaries, and the broader Democratic resistance, to relentless scrutiny – repeatedly, and continuously, until January 2029. Or potentially even thereafter.
Trump is singling out his personal foes. Stephen Miller desires a more extensive suppression of the opposition.
A noteworthy disparity exists between the apparent focus of the president and his closest advisor concerning their intended targets.
For President Trump, matters are deeply personalized, and he has shown a strong inclination towards initiating retaliatory prosecutions against specific persons with whom he has been in conflict.
Frequently, such targets comprise individuals who were involved in probes concerning Trump, such as Comey and James – the initial two to be indicted. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has been made a target of a mortgage examination. Former CIA director John Brennan and former FBI director Chris Wray are also marked individuals, alongside Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis.
In their pursuit of these objectives, Trump’s allies have thoroughly scrutinized mortgage documents or prior congressional testimony with the expectation of discovering something that could be construed by prosecutors as an inaccurate declaration or transgression.
Trump’s rationale would be: “They initiated this conduct.” He would argue that it mirrors the experiences he and his associates have faced over the previous decade: persistent investigations throughout his initial term, culminating in four prosecutions during Biden’s tenure, a legal ordeal that only concluded with his victory in 2024.
Certain of Trump’s grievances are baseless — he faced prosecution for attempting to manipulate the 2020 election, an act he verifiably committed — while others possess a semblance of validity. Indeed, elected Democratic prosecutors in New York state invested years examining his business history in search of accusations that could be sustained against him or his family.
Conversely, Miller seemingly desires to concentrate on the broader and more strategic political opposition by aiming at significant Democratic and progressive entities and contributors.
For months, Miller has been incensed by demonstrations targeting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who are enacting the mass deportation initiative, which is his brainchild. However, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s slaying last month, he commenced the assembly of a multi-agency operation to target the funding and structuring of the left.
As per a Reuters report, Miller’s endeavor is scrutinizing protests marked by violence or vandalism, aiming to accuse groups that sanctioned or endorsed these protests of inciting left-leaning terrorism through illicit means.
“We need to employ our anti-terrorism regulations, our RICO [racketeering] provisions, our conspiracy laws — we must harness every instrument within our law enforcement repertoire to suppress these left-wing terrorists legally, monetarily, and politically, as well as severing their financial support and incarcerating them,” stated Mike Davis, a legal advocate affiliated with the Trump administration, to Rolling Stone.
One prominent focal point of this initiative thus far is the Open Society Foundations, the grant-giving arrangement supported by billionaire George Soros. It has been reported that a senior Department of Justice official instructed US attorney’s offices to probe the network towards the end of the preceding month. A White House representative was explicit concerning the political purpose, advising Reuters: “The intention is to destabilize Soros’s network.”
Additional prospective targets highlighted in Reuters’s disclosure encompassed ActBlue — the main online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates that Trump mandated the DOJ to scrutinize in April — and Indivisible — the progressive organizing coalition.
“Trump is pursuing standard liberal nonprofits,” leftist commentator Adam Johnson posted on X. “This is not merely a conflict with the left, it’s also a conflict with conventional Democrats because Republicans aim to function without substantial opposition in 2026 and 2028.”
Inundating the area with garbage may not yield convictions. Yet, it has the potential to create a four-year legal ordeal.
The challenge for both Trump and Miller, as well as the consolation for those they are targeting, lies in the apparent feebleness of these cases thus far.
The indictments of Comey and James manifest deep defects, and establishing a connection between progressive organizations or patrons and actual violence is anticipated to be exceedingly challenging, particularly without infringing on the First Amendment.
The preponderance of these prosecutions appears poised for collapse, either during trial or in advance. (While it remains uncertain whether all will conclude in this manner. It is conceivable that specific cases could be initiated within Republican-leaning jurisdictions and be presided over by judges aligned with MAGA, such as Aileen Cannon.)
Nonetheless, if one prosecution fails, the Trump administration retains the capability to initiate another — potentially against the same individual.
Throughout the previous decade, MAGA’s enforcers and subordinates have honed their proficiency in formulating intricate logical sequences and legal hypotheses to assert the culpability of their adversaries.
Specifically, a swift dismissal of the allegations in the judicial system may not — and likely will not — signify the conclusion for Comey, James, or other targets of Trump. Trump’s appointees retain the option of leveling unfounded accusations against them on unrelated matters, thereby prolonging their legal tribulations, at least until his departure from office.
Furthermore, numerous prominent Democratic and progressive organizations and patrons may be approaching a similar destiny.
Source: vox.com
