Trump Not Looking Good in Retribution Campaign

There is an old saying in legal circles that a determined prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich.” The point, of course, is that grand juries tend to follow the lead of prosecutors, who control the evidence they see. Yet in the unfolding effort by the Trump administration to pursue criminal charges against many of the President’s most outspoken critics, that maxim has not held true. In fact, the opposite seems to be happening. Grand juries are pushing back, and the results are undermining the credibility of the entire retribution campaign.

The most recent and most embarrassing setback came when a federal grand jury declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress who had recorded videos reminding military personnel that they are not obligated to obey unlawful orders. As a matter of constitutional law, that statement is correct. Service members are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires disobedience of manifestly illegal commands. But the timing and framing of the videos—released amid left‑wing accusations that President Trump was issuing illegal directives—were clearly intended to encourage resistance within the ranks.

Even so, the legal theory advanced by the Department of Justice was extraordinarily thin. Prosecutors reportedly sought charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection), which criminalizes “inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.” The grand jury refused to stretch that statute to cover political messaging, however provocative. It was a case the DOJ should never have brought. Instead of projecting strength, it reinforced the perception that the administration is using the justice system to settle political scores.

This failure also casts a shadow over the other high‑profile cases the DOJ has pursued. Indictments have been brought against New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. In the cases of James and Comey, prosecutors failed to secure indictments on their first attempt—an unusual outcome in federal practice—but succeeded on a second round of grand jury presentations.

Two things can be true at once. Given the political history between Trump and these individuals, it is understandable that many observers view the charges as retaliatory. At the same time, the DOJ has presented evidence that, on its face, supports bringing the cases to court.

In the indictments of James and Schiff, prosecutors relied on 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (False Statements to Financial Institutions), alleging that both officials misrepresented secondary residences as primary homes in order to obtain favorable mortgage terms. The evidence reportedly includes loan applications, residency affidavits, and financial disclosures that contradict one another. While mortgage fraud of this type is not commonly prosecuted, especially when the financial institutions did not suffer losses—it still meets the statutory definition of fraud. The rarity of enforcement is precisely what fuels accusations of political motivation.

The case against Bolton appears more straightforward. He is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793 (Unauthorized Retention of National Defense Information), the same statute used in the prosecution of General David Petraeus. Prosecutors allege that Bolton knowingly retained classified documents after leaving government service and failed to return them despite repeated requests.

The most serious allegations, however, are those leveled against Comey. He faces charges under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records), based on claims that he abused his authority and violated FBI protocols in initiating the original Trump‑Russia investigation – which exonerated Trump and the campaign of conspiring with Russia. Whether the charges against Comey will hold up in court remains to be seen, but the political implications are undeniable.

Taken together, these developments paint a picture of a retribution campaign struggling to gain legitimacy. When grand juries push back, it becomes harder to argue that justice—not politics—is driving the prosecutions.

The entire retribution campaign is founded on accusations that these individuals all led efforts to bring down Trump’s first presidency and to head off a second term. In running for Attorney General, James repeatedly promised to “get Trump.” Schiff lied when he said he saw hard evidence that Trump conspired with the Russian interference in the election. Comey testified to Congress that he leaked information about Trump in the hope of having a special counsel appointed – which led to the appointment of James Mueller.

There is a Chinese saying that if you pick up the tiger, you need to be able to carry it to the cage. That is Trump’s problem. If charges keep getting dismissed or fail to win convictions, the retribution campaign is going to look awfully shallow.

So, there ‘tis.