#political-prosecutions

#political-prosecutions

Trump declared the trio "guilty as hell," and linked the need to serve swift "justice" to the roles they played in the congressional investigations, criminal probes and civil lawsuits that have dogged his political career. He took credit for firing the U.S. attorney who declined to bring charges against James and Comey - then installed personal attorney Lindsey Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience, to finish the job.

Yet the reason he finds himself in the president's crosshairs, apart from the subservience of a newly appointed U.S. attorney in Virginia with no experience in criminal law, and an attorney general who can't even bring herself to refer to Comey by name on the day of his indictment, can be traced to the federal judicial system itself. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, led by a chief justice who has done more than most to empower

known for years that there are costs for standing up to Donald Trump.

Federal grand juries return indictments in the overwhelming majority of cases, about 99.9 percent, according to the best estimates. The prosecution controls every aspect of the proceedings, while the defendant has no opportunity to object or present their case; there's a reason lawyers joke that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. It is historic, and quite possibly unprecedented, for federal prosecutors to face so many rebukes in such a short span of time.

The question arises as the Trump administration threatens charges against three prominent Democrats who have angered the president: U.S. Senator Adam Schiff of California, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. All stand accused of submitting an application for a home loan stating that the property would be their primary residence, then treating another property as their primary residence.