Trump’s Body Slam to the Rule of Law – Can American Democracy Survive?

Trump’s Body Slam to the Rule of Law – Can American Democracy Survive?

Advanced Weaponization the Department of Justice

@realDonaldTrump

Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT 

Donald Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform, September 20th, 5 days before former FBI Director, James Comey was indicted

"My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn't either… My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system. I'm innocent, so let's have a trial and keep the faith." 

Comey’s reaction to his indictment, September 26th.

Five days after she was appointed to replace Trump’s earlier appointment as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, a former Miss Colorado beauty contest participant (she finished 4th) and insurance legal specialist, acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, found her way to the Grand Jury room where, unaccompanied by other lawyers from her new office, she convinced at least 12 of 23 grand jurors to indict former FBI director, James Comey, on two of three counts she presented: making a false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

Halligan had only handled three federal cases prior to her appointment, none of which involved a criminal prosecution. Acting on the investigatory opinion of his staff attorneys, Siebert had followed the ethical rule applied to all prosectors in US Attorneys’ offices: do not seek indictments with insufficient evidence to convict. When he refused to seek an indictment, Siebert, a staunch Republican, was fired/quit and replaced. Trump has since referred to Siebert as a “radical leftist.”

As Halligan secured that indictment, a number of attorneys in her office resigned, not surprisingly including Comey’s son-in-law. Even as Trump claimed in several interviews that he took no part in seeking this indictment, that AG Pam Bondi alone directed her US Attorney in Eastern Virgina to pursue the rather flimsy and virtually meritless case against Comey, Trump clearly pulled the levers…. and perhaps, as Trump himself said after the indictment, “There will be others.” Courts almost never dismiss criminal cases based on malicious and selective prosecution, but there never has been a case where such prosecution is so painfully obvious (see above quote), this is it. Comey has been directed to attend his arraignment on October 9th. Halligan is only an “acting” US Attorney, awaiting a tough Senate confirmation process for a full appointment.

Comey has never been anyone I believed in or supported. I am one of those who believes that by announcing that although there were questions of judgment, 11 days before the 2016 election, Comey took it upon himself to announce why the FBI was not pursing Hillary Clinton for inappropriate emails dealing with sensitive information that he stated were not worthy of criminal prosecution, Comey probably influenced the election of his future nemesis, Donald Trump, to the office of President of the United States. In the years following, until he was fired by Trump, Comey tried to restore a semblance of neutrality by following up investigations of Trump own potential criminal election violations and document handling malfeasance, which efforts were shut down when Trump was reelected in 2024.

But while the absurd revenge Comey indictment is itself an important story, it is only a symptom of the severe erosion of the intention of our democratic guardrails and constitutional protections. With a Trump stacked US Supreme Court and a GOP congressional contingent intimidated into blind “whatever Trump wants” loyalty, there is genuine question whether the United States is well into the transition into a rule by law autocracy. I believe we are facing a five-alarm firestorm.

One of my most important blogs – my August 16th Rule of Law vs Rule by Lawpost – examined what happens to political systems, evidenced in so many other countries, when guardrails, established to create equal protection under the law, fail. Democracies uniformly have such powerful guardrails; failing democracies and autocracies do not. Our Founding Fathers believed passionately in rule of law, firmly rejecting the autocratic demands of George III.

Forgive me for repeating the core of the “of vs by” law” determinants, but it worthwhile to have my earlier simple reference, in understanding how the United States has turned law from its intended function to protect equal justice, society itself, into prosecutors’ turning Trump’s campaign pledge, “I am your retribution,” into one-man rule… rule “by law.” As AG Pam Bondi and FBI head Kash Patel react to the indictment of James Comey, joined by rubber-stamp chorus of Republicans in Congress, hailing that federal prosecution as proving “no man is above the law,” the obvious reality is quite the opposite. So, I would like to repeat my earlier blog’s difference between rule of vs rule by law:

Who creates the laws, and their reference points and political, legal or cultural limitations determine rule of or by the law. A theocracy, like Iran, elevates Quranic law, as interpreted by Shia’s highest theologians above any laws created by human beings. Germany’s Nazi Party also had a legal system, but its laws were applied to amplify individual power and the party of the Fuhrer himself. When the law emanates from a single leader, one who cannot be contained by a judicial system, that is clearly rule by law. The LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation determined that “rule of” requires examination of four core values, noting that “The stronger each of these components are, the greater the rule of law.

• Equality Under the Law - All people, businesses and governments are accountable, and the law applies to everyone in the same way, no matter who you are.
• Transparency of Law - Laws must be clear, precise, affordable and accessible while protecting fundamental human rights.
• Independent Judiciary - An independent judiciary ensures equality and fairness of law between people and public officials.
• Accessible Legal Remedy - There must be access to timely resolution in a court of law.

Trump’s policies in many areas are increasingly unpopular, very much casting doubt on his ability to hold a majority in both houses of Congress in the 2026 midterms, and avoid lame duck powerlessness. Gerrymandering and other voter manipulation are in full swing as a core target of Trump and his followers, who apparently believe that without such voting rigging, they are doomed to lose their tripartite control of all three branches of government. Our Article I (of the Constitution) legislative panel should be up for grabs in a free and fair election. The midterms just might the last hope of stopping the dark curtain of autocracy that has descended upon America. And the complete death of neutrality in the DOJ is unacceptable.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as Donald Trump decries Jimmy Kimmel’s “talent,” you only have to look at his political appointments across the board to assess what he truly considers competent “talent” to be.