President Trump took his criticism of the criminal justice system to new heights Thursday, prompting alarm from national security and law enforcement officials who fear the president is seeking to protect himself from encroaching investigations at the expense of lasting damage to ­institutions.

In a “Fox & Friends” interview aired Thursday, Trump argued it “almost ought to be illegal” for “flippers” to get plea deals in exchange for testimony — a reference to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who implicated Trump this week in a scheme to cover up alleged affairs before the 2016 election. The president also lashed out at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not “taking over” the Justice Department and praised his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who was convicted of eight felonies by a federal jury in Alexandria, Va., this week.


“When people at the top show contempt for law and contempt for the legal process, that’s bound to trickle down,” said Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor.

Continue reading:  Critics fear Trump’s attacks are doing lasting damage to the justice system

22 thoughts on “Critics fear Trump’s attacks are doing lasting damage to the justice system

  1. I agree with them. i wish, if he had a strong enough case, that Mueller would just say, “Eff it. I’m indicting this prick. Let it go to the Supreme Court.” They may not rule in his favor, but tRump will be marred for life as the first ever sitting president to be SO corrupt he simply HAD to be indicted. Trump has brought all of his filth and corruption into the spotlight by becoming president. He’s also causing severe harm to our legal system. I truly, deeply hate this prick.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Indeed. Mueller may see Congress’ neglecting of its constitutional responsibility to hold the president accountable (i.e. impeachment) as sufficient reason to indict Trump. Also, the New York state investigation and possible prosecution of Trump would take place beyond the control of Republicans.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Only if there is a law stating Congress HAS to fulfill a constitutional responsibility to impeach a sitting President. In such an instance he might have more legal standing for indictment of Congress than he would have for indictment of Trump. UNLESS he has proof of criminal activity of such a nature that he can LEGALLY indict a sitting President.

        Anything short of that might be arguable as an act of Treason.


        • Members of Congress take an oath of office to “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” The Founders established a separation of powers to ensure that no branch of government exceeded its authority. Impeachment rests solely with the House of Representatives. When a sitting President commits “high crimes and misdemeanors” which violate or obstruct the laws of the nation, then it is the sworn duty of Congress to execute its constitutional authority. No specific law to compel it is necessary.

          Regarding Trump, he is already an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal case and the evidence against him keeps mounting. Should he blatantly obstruct justice further via a Nixonian “Saturday Night Massacre,” then Congress’ refusal to impeach would put the DOJ and the Special Counsel in uncharted waters – for they have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution as well.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I agree with you for the most part; the one part that I disagree on is that this current Congress has any intention of supporting and defending the Constitution.

          Sure, they swore oaths to do so….but if those oaths meant a damned thing to a single one of them, none of this would have ever gotten this far.

          This is beyond payoffs by special interests. These people are unified, working from a Party agenda based on their interpretation of the Bible.

          I also think they are counting on the DOJ and the Special Counsel to recognize they are in uncharted waters and to opt to stand down and do nothing. Why? Because we have a real big problem if they shut down the entire executive and legislative branches because the majority of the policy-makers are cooling heels in jail cells.

          In short….they are putting the DOJ and Special Counsel on the horns of a real dilemma.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Oaths of office are legally binding. Failure to perform constitutional duties is punishable as impeachable or treasonous acts, and it is sufficient grounds for dismissal via administrative measures.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Impeachment has never resulted in removal of Office except in the case of Nixon who didn’t even wait to get Impeached before he removed himself from Office. Can we impeach all of Congress? Because we are talking about Congress here….administrative measures….have you EVER in your life under ANY circumstances, seen administrative subordinates take down their bosses?

          Forget the whole “what should be” situation and look solidly at what is most likely based on how things usually work here.

          Is it impeachable? Treasonous? I don’t know on impeachable, arguably yes on Treasonous, but that doesn’t mean there will ever be a court trial to decide that. Destroying the economy could be argued to be treasonous too, yet most of Wall Street never was brought to trial over the recession in 2007.

          All I am saying here is….what should be versus what is…two totally different things. We don’t live in an idealistic world. Not any more, if we ever did.

          Liked by 1 person

        • The constitutional law I cited is not “idealistic,” it is the legal foundation of how this nation governs itself. The votes to both impeach Nixon and to remove him from office were garnered, and that is precisely why he resigned. I lived through that crisis, and procedurally understand how it could happen again.

          I do get your point about the collapse of ethical and principled behavior in America today. It is an undeniable reality. However, the only way to turn that around is for ethical and principled people to stand up and speak their mind. Those who passively accept moral decay are the problem; and, those who advise others to accept that moral decay will be thoroughly scrutinized on this blog.


        • Well then, it becomes a numbers game. I don’t disagree about the need to stand against moral decay. But are you willing to risk death for it? Because if those who stand against it do not, then they will likely be imprisoned at best, executed at worst.

          As evidence I cite every relatively democratic nation that has fallen into some form of fascist and especially theocratic fascist state in the last 100 years and especially in the last 40.

          Right now I am hoping OUR system proves to be resilient to those of other nations because if it does not…well, hope we are not worth killing more than once.



        • I have risked such consequences before. Have you?

          It is curious to me that people who present themselves as opposed to Trump would equate others’ resisting him to risking imprisonment and death. A skeptical observer might interpret that as an implied threat (e.g. “shut up about Trump or he’ll shut you up permanently”). Is that the message you are trying to convey?


        • Regarding your question of a threat, no, not at all.

          On the rest…you have risked arrest, detainment, torture, and death as a political dissident? Where if I may ask?

          I have not, yet, but it has occurred to me many times that given that I contribute to at least two organizations currently standing up to the Trump Administration on a whole slew of legal, human and civil rights issues, I could be rounded up for midnight disappearing. All it would take is criminalization of those organizations as terrorist organizations and I could probably be arrested for contributing to such.

          Do you NOT think it possible we are facing a very real fascist shift here?

          Why would I try to shut you up about Trump, irregardless of whether or not I think Trump will eventually try to shut people up permanently? I think it is possible he will; or someone will….but, the more people talking, the harder that job would be, and it would certainly slow folks like that down, giving others the chance to run.

          No, not trying to shut you up. I just think you are making assumptions about things like rationality and respect for the Rule of Law. I applaud rationality and Rule of Law; I would dearly love for those elements to save the day. But I studied Psychology as an undergrad and Homeland Security as a Post Grad. Suffice to say we aren’t the only country in the world with a Constitution and a Democratic form of Government, and many of those other countries fell because new regimes came to power and threw rationality and the Rule of Law out the window. Some of them are nations like Iran, some of them are nations like Libya and Yemen and Syria.

          One last thing before I depart…and just think it over…..Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment, trying to understand why so many people went along with the Nazis during World War II. I am sure you have heard of it, and you probably even know he discovered that 2/3s of his participants would have killed a screaming victim in the name of obeying authority without any physical force being applied. You may even know those studies were replicated by other independent researchers with similar findings. Don’t be in denial of human nature sir. That is what I am saying.

          And on this thread I am going to take my leave…WP has a strange way of organizing threads and I am WAY behind in my own work.


        • Well, I’m relieved to read that you weren’t intending to silence my opposition to Trump. I also completely agree that the dangers posed by fascism, etc. are very real and should not be underestimated. As Sinclair Lewis warned, it can happen here.

          I have also studied psychology as well as sociology, politics, history, and even some constitutional law. You are welcome to disagree about my “assumptions” regarding current perceptions of the rule of law (which I have not specifically stated here), but you must understand that your argument is one of opinion and not fact. The U.S. still has a republican form of government until Trump or someone else abolishes it. Opinions which are belabored in an attempt to sway others are likely to be received negatively by people. This is basic psychology.

          Differences of opinion are difficult to resolve because everyone is entitled to their subjective point of view. Disagreement over facts are resolvable because they can be objectively verified. The rule of law may indeed be destroyed in America, but until that actually happens, saying that it will is just speculation.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Agreed…though you could have just said “cite your sources”. You could have cited yours too and then I would not have considered them assumptions.

          Everything is speculation and subjective opinion until backed up with citations. However, basic psychology also proves that belaboring anything can build resistance in others, preventing them from any form of objectivity.

          This is because I am still here talking and you wish me to stop? Fair enough. Laters.


    • While I can certainly understand and empathize with the sentiment…bad idea. You start indicting people because they are perceived as dangerous or because we hate them and you set a dangerous legal precedent that can and would be used against anyone, even you.

      Be patient, let Mueller build his case. He strikes me as a very methodical man. If laws have been broken he will uncover it. While Trump may have a cult of followers, he also has a lot of people around who know what he is and won’t go along with it. Combine that with most of his lackeys being the type that would turn on a dime to be first in line to sell their own mothers….he is going to go down. It is just a matter of time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And if Mueller has a butt load of evidence and a Republican held House still refuses to impeach, he MUST indict. Will the Supreme Court uphold it? Doubtful. But just as we can’t go around indicted everyone we may think is “bad”, we also can’t sit by and let a corrupt, rotten, treasonous criminal get off and be be free of the law simply because he’s the president. No one is above the law. Once we lose that idea, we’re very much a lost society. Unfortunately, that may very well be where we’re headed with Herr tRump.
        I do not see where I stated Trump should be indicted just because some people think he’s a “bad” guy. We must see what evidence Mueller has, but the evidence of crimes Trump has already committed, in regards to the Cohen affair, would get anyone else indicted on conspiracy charges were they not the president. No, we certainly can’t go around having people indicted just cause we think they’re bad, but that most certainly will not happen here. If Mueller were to attempt such a thing, he’d need a great deal of evidence, and, from what I’m seeing so far, I’d be extremely surprised if he doesn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Maybe I read your statements wrong, they looked like you were saying to hell with the evidence, just indict him because ….

          In any case…it may come down to holding off indictment until he leaves Office. This is unprecedented area and I am not a Constitutional lawyer. However, I am not holding my breath that he is going to get dragged out of the WH in handcuffs.

          It’d be nice but yeah too many big IFs.


  2. This man is so dangerous!!! And yet his idiotic followers are completely blind to what’s going on.

    Everything he says or does is for himself. Period. Some actions may appear to be for the good of the nation, but when push comes to shove, his prime consideration is to ensure he remains the shining star of the deplorables.

    Even all this stuff that’s currently happening. He words everything to make sure they see it as the OTHER guy’s fault.

    It almost drives me to my knees!!??!

    Liked by 2 people

    • They’re a cult. Period. It’s like arguing with Christians who think the bible is inerrant and only 6000 years old. You can;t change them. They’re right. You’re wrong. Period. I just hope enough people vote in November to get us the House. I’m still terrified they won’t.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Reblogged this on 61chrissterry and commented:
    Unfortunately Trump believes that in Law and Order the rules are according to Trump, which by following this path is the end of democracy and the installation of Trump as a Dictator. Given the time a leeway he will set himself up as President for life.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.