What if a president publicly admonished the America's Chief prosecutor for not criminally charging his political enemies? What if he named specific people that he flat out demanded be charged? What if he even said why he wanted them prosecuted, because they impeached him and indicted him?
You do not have to imagine this. It happened.
Donald Trump posted on Truth Social blasting Attorney General Pam Bondi as "all talk, no action." Trump declared:
"What about Comey, Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done."
He then bragged about firing the United States Attorney from Virginia for not indicting Leticia James. He declared "we can't wait any longer." His reason? "They impeached me twice and indicted me (5 times)."
The rant does not include a single enumeration of an actual crime they are supposedly guilty of, other than impeaching and indicting Trump.
Now let me explain something. Let's suppose these people, or some of them, are guilty of something. They probably are not, but for the sake of argument, assume they are.
This post by Donald Trump has severely compromised any criminal prosecution against them no matter how legitimate it might, in some fantasy world, be. Any competent counsel for any of these defendants would claim the prosecution was politically motivated, driven by a president who campaigned on revenge and then publicly ordered that revenge.
Even if there is a credible case against such defendants, the President of the United States declaring they are "guilty as Hell" has prejudiced any jury pool thereby denying defendants due process and mandating dismissal. The post also boosts defense arguments for selective prosecution and malicious prosecution.
This is why presidents, with a lick of common sense, separate themselves from prosecutorial process. Mandating what prosecutors do undermines their job and makes prosecutions much more challenging.
Selective and malicious prosecution are usually difficult to prove, in part because the "presumption of regularity" presumes good faith and normal, orderly processes within the government. That presumption, however, is rebuttable. This post goes a long way towards that rebuttal and the Department of Justice has in case after case already greatly undermined the presumption of regularity in the eyes of many judges.
If you are a MAGA, sharing Trump's delusion that these people are guilty of something, you should be furious that he is spoiling any prosecution of them.
