Trump's war on Justice
Why the president continues to lash out at his own Justice Department
Last week, President Trump told The New York Times that when it came to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Russia scandal, "I think he's going to be fair." This was widely misinterpreted as being at odds with the broader Republican message that Mueller is leading an out-of-control probe staffed by maniacal anti-Trump partisans. It wasn't that at all. For Trump, a "fair" investigation is one that exonerates him, just as when he whines about how he's being treated unfairly by the media, he means that they aren't praising him in the fulsome manner he believes he deserves. More than anything else, predicting Mueller would be "fair" to him was an expression of Trump's typical confidence that he'll triumph in the end.
But there's a long way between here and there, and as the investigation proceeds Trump is going to ask members of his party to follow him to some uncomfortable places. At the very least, the president who promised to bring back "law and order" will want his followers to demean and discredit the Justice Department, the FBI, and any other entity that should happen to get in his way.
On Tuesday, Trump offered up this absurdist performance art masterpiece of a tweet:
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
It isn't worth working too hard to unravel that tossed salad of bizarre claims; it's enough to understand that Trump continues to demand the prosecution of his political opponents. Perhaps more importantly, the "Deep State Justice Dept" line is a tipoff that Trump is getting his perspective from a right-wing media that relentlessly feeds his paranoia. For them, the "deep state" represents a secret bureaucratic apparatus engaged in a conspiracy to thwart Trump's policies and destroy his presidency, a conspiracy that apparently includes a slate of people Trump appointed and the FBI itself.
The closer the probe gets to Trump, the more it has to be attacked. This weekend we learned that the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia began when the Australian government alerted our government that Trump flunky George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat "during a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016" that the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton drawn from emails. In other words, the FBI wasn't on the case until someone from the Trump campaign forced them to look into it.
The idea that Papadopoulos was blabbing to an Australian diplomat in a bar but didn't share his information with the campaign itself is virtually impossible to believe, which would mean that the campaign knew the Russians were hacking the Democrats, but didn't themselves call the FBI when they found out about it. You can be sure that Mueller will be asking why, as should we all.
In any case, the provenance of the FBI investigation explodes the claim some on the right — including Trump himself — had been making before now, that the entire investigation is illegitimate because it supposedly originated with the opposition research "dossier" assembled by a former British intelligence agent. "FBI TAINTED," Trump recently tweeted after getting riled up by a segment about the dossier on Fox & Friends. "And they used this Crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump Campaign!"
Well no, they didn't — not to mention the fact that they weren't "going after the Trump Campaign," they were investigating whether a hostile foreign power was meddling in an American presidential election. But I suppose that if you think that any investigation into that question is proof of anti-Trump bias, you'd be willing to countenance all manner of attacks on federal law enforcement.
I'm sure there are more than a few elected Republicans who are deeply uneasy with the fact that so many of their ideological compatriots are vilifying the FBI and the Justice Department. If you're one of them, and you don't want to be one of those screaming for a "purge" of those in government who are insufficiently loyal to Trump (and yes, one congressman actually used that word), up until now it hasn't been too hard to dodge questions on the scandal. You could just say that we should let the investigation run its course and then address the findings, whatever they turn out to be.
But you can only say that for so long. With each new revelation that implicates the campaign and perhaps Trump himself, there will be an intense reaction from Trump's defenders to vilify the investigators. Every Republican will have to decide how far they're willing to go to stand by an increasingly desperate president. As they make that decision, they'll reveal a great deal about themselves.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for The Washington Post. His writing has appeared in dozens of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, and he is the author or co-author of four books on media and politics.
-
Bormio: 'a great Alpine getaway'
The Week Recommends From snowy slopes and hot-spring spas, to high-end food and wine, this Italian town has something to offer everyone
By Asya Likhtman Published
-
Crossword: March 28, 2024
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
Sudoku medium: March 28, 2024
The Week's daily medium sudoku puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published