tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/department-of-justice-12715/articlesDepartment of Justice – The Conversation2024-03-28T00:03:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2265122024-03-28T00:03:01Z2024-03-28T00:03:01ZThe US is suing Apple for anti-competitive behaviour. But the company’s walled-off tech ecosystem has driven its bold innovation<p>With an impressive 60% of the US smartphone market, Apple is undeniably big, but not a clear monopoly. </p>
<p>Yet, years of innovation by Apple have effectively given the company its own exclusive tech ecosystem. Now, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has alleged this ecosystem is <a href="https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-monoply-news-updates">harming competition and innovation</a> through Apple’s unique market power. </p>
<p>The department’s lawsuit will face a few big hurdles. Perhaps chief among them: many of the “anti-competitive” systems Apple has built are the very things that enable the bold innovation they’re famous for. </p>
<h2>The charges</h2>
<p>Apple is the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-open-broad-new-antitrust-review-of-big-tech-companies-11563914235?mod=article_inline">latest modern major US tech firm</a> to face investigation into alleged anti-competitive behaviour by the US government. </p>
<p>The DOJ explains its <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.544402/gov.uscourts.njd.544402.1.0_3.pdfv">lawsuit</a> through five consumer-relatable examples of where Apple’s iPhone ecosystem stifles competition: </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A samsung phone open to WeChat on the phone's app store" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584652/original/file-20240327-18-d3fjtp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The department blames Apple’s closed tech ecosystem for a lack of US competitors to ‘super apps’ like WeChat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kazan-russian-federation-jun-15-2018-1149046790">Allmy/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<ol>
<li><p>the inability to give “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-25/did-apple-kill-super-apps-like-wechat-justice-department-thinks-so">super apps</a>” like WeChat full functionality on iPhone</p></li>
<li><p>restrictions on game streaming apps</p></li>
<li><p>a <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/what-apples-promise-support-rcs-means-text-messaging?ref=platformer.news">functionality divide</a> between “blue bubble” and “green bubble” friends on iMessage</p></li>
<li><p>poor connectivity between non-Apple smartwatches and iPhones</p></li>
<li><p>digital wallet technology that locks out third parties.</p></li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-apple-amazon-google-and-meta-facing-antitrust-lawsuits-and-huge-fines-and-will-it-protect-consumers-221501">Why are Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta facing antitrust lawsuits and huge fines? And will it protect consumers?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the US and other jurisdictions, the tech giant has already <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/apple-concedes-to-european-banks-amid-concern-on-new-rba-payment-power-20240122-p5ez45">taken steps</a> to address some of these concerns.</p>
<p>However, the DOJ stresses these complaints aren’t exclusive or exhaustive. They’re examples to show where Apple’s “closed” ecosystem locks customers into what Apple has built.</p>
<h2>Private innovation requires private infrastructure</h2>
<p>One problem for the DOJ is that the tech world has been left to private design for 30 years. Enjoying strong growth and innovation has meant relying on private infrastructure. </p>
<p>Having the most disruptive ideas might draw consumer attention, but vast infrastructures keep them as customers (for example, <a href="https://openai.com/blog/openai-and-microsoft-extend-partnership">OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft</a>). </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.deakin.edu.au/faculty-of-arts-and-education/research/critical-digital-infrastructures-and-interfaces">research group</a> considers how digital innovations come to shape the “infrastructures” that guide our increasingly digital lives.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="An appple lightning connector and a USB C connector" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584657/original/file-20240327-28-6dl957.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Despite its long insistence on ‘lightning’ connectors, Apple had a major hand in developing USB-C technology.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/charging-cables-phone-on-black-background-1919745620">Ivan_Shenets/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider Apple’s influence on the mundane and technical, such as <a href="https://9to5mac.com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/">USB-C technology</a>. Or surprising cultural shifts, such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/07/apple-airpods-launch-problems-with-wireless-headphones">Airpods</a>. And even how iPhone technology <a href="https://medium.com/@ignaziomottola/the-history-of-instagram-ff266eb75427">effectively launched Instagram culture</a>.</p>
<p>The DOJ’s core argument is that Apple’s business model has now shifted from leading innovation to gatekeeping its cultural-technical infrastructures. </p>
<p>Such shifts are not necessarily planned evils. Infrastructure can lead to further infrastructure with novel benefits: it is no accident internet fibre cables <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/how-railroad-history-shaped-internet-history/417414/">follow old rail lines</a> on land and telegraph cables undersea. </p>
<p>Over time, though, a combination of cultural-technical infrastructures built up by a powerful company can monopolise a market. To know that story’s end game, <a href="https://doctorow.medium.com/boeing-spirit-and-jetblue-a-monopoly-horror-story-c69fd6586afd#:%7E:text=Bill%20Clinton%27s%20administration%20oversaw%20the,dropping%20out%20of%20the%20sky.&text=As%20Matt%20Stoller%20says%2C%20America,but%20has%20no%20say%20over.">think Boeing</a>.</p>
<h2>Defining Apple’s monopoly</h2>
<p>Another problem for the DOJ is it will be hard to define the market that Apple allegedly monopolises or attempts to. Use of the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act#:%7E:text=The%20Sherman%20Anti%2DTrust%20Act%20authorized%20the%20federal%20government%20to,foreign%20nations%22%20was%20declared%20illegal.">1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act</a> on firms requires such a definition. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1770830966669344908"}"></div></p>
<p>It makes sense the department is using this act against Google, which controls <a href="https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share">more than 90%</a> of the search market. But Apple’s market share is far lower – not even a majority of mobile phone sales worldwide.</p>
<p>To get around this, the department argues the market that Apple does have is unique. Apple is famously good at creating its own markets – rehashing familiar things (hard drives and MP3 files) to make novel products (iPods) that “just work” for consumers and suppliers.</p>
<p>Apple’s competitive edge is creating the exclusive platforms it’s now being pursued for. </p>
<p>As many will remember, before the iPhone, browsing the internet on a phone wasn’t a thing. Before iTunes, digital music was a pain or illegal. </p>
<p>For millions of Apple fans across the US, the DOJ’s logic is a hard sell. </p>
<h2>A highly trusted middleman</h2>
<p>Notably repeated in this lawsuit is the need for “<a href="https://www.electronicmarkets.org/fileadmin/user_upload/doc/Issues/Volume_09/Issue_01-02/V09I1-2_Strategies_for_Internet_Middlemen_in_the_Intermediation-Disintermediation-Reintermediation_Cycle.pdf">disintermediation</a>”, which means removing the “middlemen” who take a cut between customers and suppliers.</p>
<p>The DOJ alleges Apple acts as such a middleman by imposing on consumer choice – whether by restricting Apple’s interoperability with other products, or charging a <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/01/08/the-cost-of-doing-business-apples-app-store-fees-explained">30% fee</a> (the so-called <a href="https://www.insightpartners.com/ideas/do-you-have-to-pay-the-apple-tax-its-complicated/#:%7E:text=%E2%80%9CApple%20Tax%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20slang,subject%20to%20a%2030%25%20surcharge">Apple Tax</a>) to do business on Apple’s platforms. </p>
<p>The challenge is that in a world of bad actors on the internet (evil or incompetent), people actually seem to love Apple’s capacity to intermediate. </p>
<p>The company’s strict control of its apps, products and services enables growth across its platforms and has given it a <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/apple-long-a-champion-of-consumer-privacy-and-security-now-sits-at-a-crossroads/">reputation</a> for being an exceptional “middleman” for privacy, usability and other consumer concerns. </p>
<p>For example, Apple’s wallet launched to <em>not</em> transmit credit card numbers to merchants, who <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_breaches">regularly suffer data breaches and leaks</a>. It <a href="https://birchtree.me/blog/digital-wallets-and-the-only-apple-pay-does-this-mythology/">offered an intermediary solution</a> where evil (and <a href="https://www.applicoinc.com/blog/happened-currentc-platform-innovation-fails/">incompetent</a>) actors abound.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="person pays using an Apple watch" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584653/original/file-20240327-18-4jjhqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Apple Wallet securely completes transactions without sharing credit card details with a merchant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/person-paying-cafe-smart-watch-wirelessly-1298158189">Kaspars Grinvalds/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The department’s <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.544402/gov.uscourts.njd.544402.1.0_3.pdf">claim</a> this practice creates an “additional point of failure for privacy and security” is incoherent.</p>
<p><a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/specialprojects/protectingfinancialstability/timeline">An extensive history of cybercrime incidents</a> around the world shows that for consumers, credit card companies and merchants, holding customer data becomes a liability, as well as an asset. </p>
<p>During the pandemic, Apple’s trusted ability to intermediate also fostered the success of “<a href="https://developer.apple.com/exposure-notification/">Exposure Notification</a>”, a privacy-preserving contact tracing system that kept personal exposure data away from governments and other parties.</p>
<p>But in other areas, the department argues that Apple has leveraged this reputation in self-serving ways. </p>
<p>Fortnite developer Epic Games’ <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/23/apple-versus-epic-games-fortnite-app-store-saga----the-story-so-far">ongoing stoush</a> with Apple over policies to charge 30% on in-app purchases is one key example. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="App store icon, epic games icon, both on a phone screen" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584663/original/file-20240327-18-jr4bml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Epic Games sued Apple after being kicked off the App Store for adding a direct billing mechanism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/app-store-vs-epic-games-concept-1967268796">mundissima/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many developers would likely have followed Epic in trying to get their customers cash out of Apple’s grasp, if not for <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-in-apples-war-on-developers-users-are-the-biggest-losers/">fear of retribution</a> from Apple. </p>
<p>Yet, Epic Games largely <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/23/apple-versus-epic-games-fortnite-app-store-saga----the-story-so-far">lost to Apple</a> in US courts, and this year the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals. This loss may have compelled the DOJ to act.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/apple-google-and-fortnites-stoush-is-a-classic-case-of-how-far-big-tech-will-go-to-retain-power-144728">Apple, Google and Fortnite's stoush is a classic case of how far big tech will go to retain power</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Even the success of this lawsuit won’t necessarily bring about useful change at Apple or for the consumer. </p>
<p>In Europe, the tech giant has already demonstrated an expert capacity for “<a href="https://proton.me/blog/apple-dma-compliance-plan-trap">malicious compliance</a>” – after meeting the European Union’s new <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en">Digital Markets Act</a> policy in such bad faith that its solution barely works and is now being <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1689">re-investigated</a>. </p>
<p>Overall, it’s not that Apple is necessarily, well, a “bad apple”, but that “<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline">Apple vs USA</a>” allows us to think different about what really drives innovation in modern tech.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Heemsbergen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Department of Justice will have to prove that Apple’s ‘closed’ platforms have hurt rather than helped its customers.Luke Heemsbergen, Senior Lecturer, Digital, Political, Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2226992024-02-07T13:19:28Z2024-02-07T13:19:28ZDOJ funding pipeline subsidizes questionable big data surveillance technologies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573845/original/file-20240206-28-bp34iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6720%2C4476&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Predictive policing aimed to identify crime hot spots and 'chronic' offenders but missed the mark.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/los-angeles-ca-lapd-captain-elizabeth-morales-speaks-during-news-photo/624080088">Patrick T. Fallon for The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Predictive policing has been shown to be an ineffective and biased policing tool. Yet, the Department of Justice has been funding the crime surveillance and analysis technology for years and continues to do so despite criticism from researchers, privacy advocates and members of Congress.</p>
<p>Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., joined by five Democratic senators, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to <a href="https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-clarke-press-justice-department-to-end-funding-for-flawed-predictive-policing-systems">halt funding</a> for <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/predictive-policing-explained">predictive policing technologies</a> in a letter issued Jan. 29, 2024. Predictive policing involves analyzing crime data in an attempt to identify where and when crimes are likely to occur and who is likely to commit them.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_doj_predictive_policing_and_title_vi_1242024.pdf">request</a> came months after the Department of Justice <a href="https://gizmodo.com/justice-department-kept-few-records-on-predictive-polic-1848660323">failed to answer</a> basic questions about how predictive policing funds were being used and who was being harmed by arguably <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09557-x">racially discriminatory algorithms</a> that have <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10060234">never been proven to work as intended</a>. The Department of Justice <a href="https://gizmodo.com/justice-department-kept-few-records-on-predictive-polic-1848660323">did not have answers</a> to who was using the technology, how it was being evaluated and which communities were affected.</p>
<p>While focused on predictive policing, the senators’ demand raises what I, a law professor who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=5ZX7SbEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">studies big data surveillance</a>, see as a bigger issue: What is the Department of Justice’s role in funding new surveillance technologies? The answer is surprising and reveals an entire ecosystem of how technology companies, police departments and academics benefit from the flow of federal dollars.</p>
<h2>The money pipeline</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://nij.ojp.gov/">National Institute of Justice</a>, the DOJ’s research, development and evaluation arm, regularly provides seed money for grants and pilot projects to test out ideas like predictive policing. It was a National Institute of Justice grant that funded the first predictive policing <a href="https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/predictive-policing-symposium-november-18-20-2009">conference in 2009</a> that launched the idea that past crime data could be run through an algorithm to <a href="https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/750/">predict future criminal risk</a>. The institute has <a href="https://nij.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list?field_award_status_value=All&state=All&field_funding_type_value=All&field_served_nationally_value=All&form_topic=&fiscal_year=&combine_awards=Predictive+Policing&awardee=&city=#awards-awards-list-block-jyhir1inpckhocqi">given US$10 million dollars</a> to predictive policing projects since 2009. </p>
<p>Because there was grant money available to test out new theories, academics and startup companies could afford to invest in <a href="https://www.npr.org/2013/07/26/205835674/can-software-that-predicts-crime-pass-constitutional-muster">new ideas</a>. Predictive policing was just an academic theory until there was cash to start testing it in various police departments. Suddenly, companies launched with the financial security that federal grants could pay their early bills. </p>
<p>National Institute of Justice-funded <a href="https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/risk-terrain-modeling-spatial-risk-assessment">research</a> often turns into for-profit companies. Police departments also benefit from getting money to buy the new technology without having to dip into their local budgets. This dynamic is one of the hidden drivers of police technology.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WXnElg9alF8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How predictive policing works – and the harm it can cause.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once a new technology gets big enough, another DOJ entity, the <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/">Bureau of Justice Assistance</a>, funds projects with direct financial grants. The bureau funded police departments to test one of the biggest place-based predictive policing technologies – <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list?field_award_status_value=All&state=All&field_funding_type_value=All&field_served_nationally_value=All&fiscal_year=&combine_awards=Predpol&awardee=&city=#awards-awards-list-block-gkgdpm1ooymuyukj">PredPol</a> – in its early years. The bureau has also funded the purchase of other <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list?field_award_status_value=All&state=All&field_funding_type_value=All&field_served_nationally_value=All&fiscal_year=&combine_awards=Predictive&awardee=&city=#awards-awards-list-block-gkgdpm1ooymuyukj">predictive technologies</a>.</p>
<p>The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded one of the most <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/05/11/predictive-policing-surveillance-los-angeles/">infamous</a> person-based predictive policing <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/losangelesspi.pdf">pilots in Los Angeles</a>, operation LASER, which targeted “chronic offenders.” Both experiments – PredPol and LASER – failed to work as intended. The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766472-BPC-19-0072#document/p32/a486274">Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General</a> identified the negative impact of the programs on the community – and the fact that the predictive theories did not work to reduce crime in any significant way.</p>
<p>As these DOJ entities’ practices indicate, federal money not only seeds but feeds the growth of new policing technologies. Since 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has given <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/doc/jag-program-fact-sheet.pdf">over $7.6 billion</a> of federal money to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies for a host of projects. Some of that money has gone directly to new surveillance technologies. A quick skim through the <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list">public grants</a> shows approximately $3 million directed to <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list?field_award_status_value=All&state=All&field_funding_type_value=All&field_served_nationally_value=All&fiscal_year=&combine_awards=facial+recognition&awardee=&city=#awards-awards-list-block-gkgdpm1ooymuyukj">facial recognition</a>, $8 million for <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list?field_award_status_value=All&state=All&field_funding_type_value=All&field_served_nationally_value=All&fiscal_year=&combine_awards=shotspotter&awardee=&city=#awards-awards-list-block-gkgdpm1ooymuyukj">ShotSpotter</a> and $13 million to build and grow <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/list?field_award_status_value=All&state=All&field_funding_type_value=All&field_served_nationally_value=All&fiscal_year=&combine_awards=RTCC&awardee=&city=#awards-awards-list-block-gkgdpm1ooymuyukj">real-time crime centers</a>. ShotSpotter (now rebranded as SoundThinking) is the leading brand of <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3558382-gunshot-detection-system-expanding-rapidly-in-us-despite-criticism/">gunshot detection technology</a>. Real-time crime centers combine security camera feeds and other data to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/real-time-crime-centers-rtcc-us-police/">provide surveillance for a city</a>.</p>
<h2>The questions not asked</h2>
<p>None of this is necessarily nefarious. The Department of Justice is in the business of prosecution, so it is not surprising for it to fund prosecution tools. The <a href="https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/brief-history-nij">National Institute of Justice</a> exists as a research body inside the Office of Justice Programs, so its role in helping to promote data-driven policing strategies is not inherently problematic. The <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/about">Bureau of Justice Assistance</a> exists to assist local law enforcement through financial grants. The DOJ is feeding police surveillance power because it benefits law enforcement interests.</p>
<p>The problem, as indicated by Sen. Wyden’s letter, is that in subsidizing experimental surveillance technologies, the Department of Justice did not do basic risk assessment or racial justice evaluations before investing money in a new technological solution. As someone who has <a href="https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/749/">studied predictive policing</a> for over a decade, I can say that the questions asked by the senators were not asked in the pilot projects. </p>
<p>Basic questions of who would be affected, whether there could be a racially discriminatory impact, how it would change policing and whether it worked were not raised in any serious way. Worse, the focus was on deploying something new, not double-checking whether it worked. If you are going to seed and feed a potentially dangerous technology, you also have an obligation to weed it out once it turns out to be harming people.</p>
<p>Only now, after <a href="https://stoplapdspying.org/action/our-fights/data-driven-policing/predictive-policing/">activists have protested</a>, after scholars have <a href="https://nyupress.org/9781479892822/the-rise-of-big-data-policing/">critiqued</a> and after the original predictive policing companies have shut down or <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/soundthinking-geolitica-acquisition-predictive-policing/">been bought by bigger companies</a>, is the DOJ starting to ask the hard questions. In January 2024, the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security asked for public comment to be included in a report on law enforcement agencies’ use of facial recognition technology, other technologies using biometric information and predictive algorithms. </p>
<p>Arising from a mandate under <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/Public_Trust_and_Safety_EO">executive order 14074</a> on advancing effective, accountable policing and criminal justice practices to enhance public trust and public safety, the DOJ Office of Legal Policy is going to evaluate how predictive policing affects civil rights and civil liberties. I believe that this is a good step – although a decade too late. </p>
<h2>Lessons not learned?</h2>
<p>The bigger problem is that the same process is happening again today with other technologies. As one example, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/real-time-crime-centers-rtcc-us-police/">real-time crime centers</a> are being built <a href="https://crosscut.com/investigations/2023/07/federal-aid-supercharging-local-wa-police-surveillance-tech">across America</a>. Thousands of security cameras stream to a <a href="https://statescoop.com/real-time-crime-centers-police-privacy/">single command center</a> that is <a href="https://www.policemag.com/technology/article/15635270/how-technology-powers-real-time-crime-centers">linked</a> to automated license plate readers, gunshot detection sensors and 911 calls. The centers also use video analytics technology to identify and track people and objects across a city. And they tap into data about past crime.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A wall of monitors shows aerial and street views of a city" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573642/original/file-20240206-21-hcjcrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Real-time crime centers like this one in Albuquerque, N.M., enable police surveillance of entire cities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/NewMexicoFightingCrime/edee0f4a6fcc4a12a30dfa1f0d5a8959/photo">AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Millions of <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/09/07/how-federal-covid-relief-flows-to-the-criminal-justice-system">federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act</a> are <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/08/16/1194115202/real-time-crime-centers-which-started-in-bigger-cities-spread-across-the-u-s">going to cities</a> with the specific designation to <a href="https://epic.org/two-years-in-covid-19-relief-money-fueling-rise-of-police-surveillance/">address crime</a>, and some of those dollars have been <a href="https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EPIC-ARPA-Surveillance-Funding-Table.pdf">diverted to build real-time crime centers</a>. They’re also being <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/15pbja-22-gg-02156-jagx">funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance</a>.</p>
<p>Real-time crime centers can do predictive analytics akin to predictive policing simply as a byproduct of all the data they collect in the ordinary course of a day. The centers can also scan entire cities with powerful computer vision-enabled cameras and react in real time. The capabilities of these advanced technologies make the civil liberties and racial justice fears around predictive policing pale in comparison. </p>
<p>So while the American public waits for answers about a technology, predictive policing, that had its heyday 10 years ago, the DOJ is seeding and feeding a far more invasive surveillance system with few questions asked. Perhaps things will go differently this time. Maybe the DOJ/DHS report on predictive algorithms will look inward at the department’s own culpability in seeding the surveillance problems of tomorrow.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I have worked as an unpaid consultant on two NIJ grants. I did not receive any compensation. One grant was an early NIJ grant to the Risk Terrain Modeling folks at Rutgers (which became Simsi). I have not had any relationship with them in years and took no money. I was also on an NIJ grant around the ethics of predictive policing. Again, I did not receive any financial compensation for the role. </span></em></p>Predictive policing has been a bust. The Department of Justice nurtured the technology from researchers’ minds to corporate production lines and into the hands of police departments.Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Professor of Law, American UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2182962023-11-21T20:31:45Z2023-11-21T20:31:45ZWho can defend voting rights? An appeals court ruling sharply limiting lawsuits looks likely to head to the Supreme Court<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560834/original/file-20231121-4144-xyqtot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The recent court decision about the Voting Rights Act could be a setback for people's right to vote.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/vehicle-displays-a-sign-reading-protect-our-freedom-to-vote-news-photo/1237831969?adppopup=true">Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images </a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>A federal appeals court in <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172336-arkansas-state-conference-naacp-2023-11-20-8th-circuit-opinion">Arkansas ruled</a> on Monday, Nov. 20, 2023, that <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/20/federal-court-deals-devastating-blow-to-voting-rights-act-00128069">only the federal government</a> – not private citizens or civil rights groups – could sue to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.</em></p>
<p><em>This decision will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court – but if it stands, it could gut individual people’s and civil rights groups’ legal right to fight racial discrimination in voting.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation spoke with <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AI_UyLUAAAAJ&hl=en">Anthony Michael Kreis</a>, a scholar of constitutional law, democracy and civil rights, to better understand the significance of this court ruling.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A Black middle-aged man speaks at a podium with the words, 'deliver for voting rights,' in a crowd of people who are wearing jackets. One person holds a sign that says 'voter suppression is un-American.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560837/original/file-20231121-4173-ql0xtm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Martin Luther King III, eldest son of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., speaks about voting rights in January 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/martin-luther-king-iii-eldest-son-of-civil-rights-leader-dr-news-photo/1237787296?adppopup=true">Samuel Corum/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is most important for people to understand about this court decision?</h2>
<p>There are currently two ways to safeguard the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act">Voting Rights Act</a> and try to enforce it in court. One is through the federal government and the Department of Justice. The other is private groups, often civil rights organizations, that try to enforce the Voting Rights Act when there is a violation and people are not being given equal opportunity and the ability to vote.</p>
<p>I believe it is important that groups like the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voting-rights-act">American Civil Liberties Union</a>, or ACLU, and the <a href="https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/legislative-milestones/voting-rights-act-1965">National Association for the Advancement of Colored People</a>, or NAACP, can go to court and litigate voting rights questions. Part of the reason is that the Department of Justice is a government office with limited resources and a finite capacity to assess all of the different jurisdictions where voting takes place. It also requires the enthusiastic support of Justice Department leaders – and this cannot be guaranteed from administration to administration. </p>
<p>These private groups have a broader reach in terms of being able to document what is happening locally and at the state level – and whether people’s voting rights are possibly being violated.</p>
<p>A ruling that private groups can no longer file lawsuits related to the Voting Rights Act removes key voting rights protectors from their roles – primarily of stopping discriminatory rules or legislation that either deprive people of their right to vote or dilute the full force of their vote. </p>
<h2>How often do private groups file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act?</h2>
<p>The NAACP or the ACLU regularly file these lawsuits. Sometimes there have been multiple private groups <a href="https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publications/ldf-blog/important-facts-about-ldfs-lawsuit-challenging-georgias-voter-suppression-bill/">filing lawsuits</a> at the same time. This happened in 2021, when a <a href="https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/what-does-georgias-new-voting-law-sb-202-do">new election law</a> in Georgia made it harder for some people to vote by limiting access to drop boxes and making it also more challenging to get an absentee ballot mailed. This law is <a href="https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/federal-court-halts-portion-of-georgias-sb202-voter-suppression-law/">still under litigation</a>. </p>
<p>The NAACP has also brought lawsuits against voting rights questions in Alabama, like whether people should have to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/naacp-loses-11th-circuit-fight-against-alabama-voter-id-law/">present a photo ID</a> in order to vote. Generally, these lawsuits have had a great deal of success at <a href="https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-commends-supreme-court-allowing-new-alabama-congressional-map">protecting people’s right to vote</a>, especially the rights of Black people and other minorities. </p>
<p>It is because they have been so successful that some conservative people who would prefer to limit voting rights in a democracy, rather than expand them, have gone after organizations’ ability to file these lawsuits.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A big sign says 'vote here today' in front of a long line of Black people who stand ouside of a brown brick building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/560838/original/file-20231121-3914-gq0a6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Black Americans line up to vote in 2008 outside of a Baptist church in Birmingham, Ala., one of the places that has faced new voting restrictions in the past few years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/african-americans-line-up-to-vote-outside-bethel-missionary-news-photo/83557085?adppopup=true">Mario Tama/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How has the Voting Rights Act been interpreted so far?</h2>
<p>Over the years, numerous courts, including the <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/115482724.html">5th</a>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/mixon-v-state-of-ohio">6th</a> and <a href="https://casetext.com/case/ala-state-conference-of-na-for-advancement-of-colored-people-v-alabama">11th</a> circuits, have taken up this issue. These courts have determined that you cannot plausibly read the Voting Rights Act in its totality and not see there is a clear, private right of action for groups like the ACLU to go to court. </p>
<p>There is a reason why this issue of private groups filing voting rights lawsuits has kind of become a new fad. In a <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-1257">Supreme Court case in 2021</a>, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas both raised this question of whether this should be allowed.</p>
<p>Now, the <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/eighth-circuit-ruling-limits-enforcement-of-voting-rights-act/">8th Circuit Court has taken that cue</a> and ruled that nongovernmental groups do not have the right, under the Voting Rights Act, to sue states for voting rights violations. The reasoning is that Congress never explicitly provided this right in the act’s text. </p>
<p>But the Supreme Court has informally recognized for decades that Congress recognizes the right of private groups to take action. And while Congress has amended the <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47520">Voting Rights Act through the years,</a> it has never tried to curtail private lawsuits. This confirms the long-understood premise that Congress empowers people and groups other than the federal government to bring voting rights litigation under the 1965 law.</p>
<h2>How does this ruling shift the legal landscape on this issue?</h2>
<p>Most of the appellate courts that have addressed this issue head-on have easily batted away arguments about private groups not being able to file lawsuits, because they have found them to be so implausible that they are not worth their time to analyze in a deep and serious way. </p>
<p>I think this ruling is part of a systemic attack against voting rights in the U.S. at an especially precarious time for American democracy’s health. This court ruling will likely <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/20/federal-court-deals-devastating-blow-to-voting-rights-act-00128069">go to the Supreme Court</a>, but if the Supreme Court affirms the decision, only the Department of Justice could enforce voting laws in a meaningful way. That is exceptionally dangerous and challenges the principle that all eligible voters get to have their voices heard in a democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Michael Kreis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ruling could make it impossible for groups like the ACLU to file lawsuits to protect people’s right to vote – significantly changing how the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted so far.Anthony Michael Kreis, Assistant Professor of Law, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2170442023-11-16T13:19:07Z2023-11-16T13:19:07ZPrison sentence for Trump adviser Navarro gives new teeth to Congress as watchdog over the White House<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559455/original/file-20231114-15-fb67p7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C0%2C2982%2C2106&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">At a January 2017 executive order signing, adviser Peter Navarro is third from left behind Trump, while Steve Bannon is on the far right. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-signs-the-first-of-three-executive-news-photo/632489940">Ron Sachs - Pool/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former Trump administration trade official <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/peter-navarro-sentence-contempt/">Peter Navarro has been sentenced to four months behind bars</a> for contempt of Congress. Navarro had refused to provide the House Jan. 6 committee with information it sought from him. He joins Steve Bannon as the first defendants in decades to be held <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-trump-adviser-navarro-convicted-contempt-congress-2023-09-07/">criminally liable</a> by the U.S. Department of Justice for refusing to provide information in response to congressional subpoenas. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has long supported Congress’ authority to obtain information needed to carry out its constitutional duties. But weak enforcement tools have made getting that information difficult, especially from the executive branch. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://law.wayne.edu/profile/fy5438">a former chief counsel for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations</a>, I view the jury convictions of Bannon and Navarro as reviving the use of criminal proceedings as an enforcement option for Congress, offering a potent tool for holding powerful people accountable if they defy the legislative branch. How often that option will actually be used in the future, however, remains unclear.</p>
<h2>The cases</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congressional-probe-us-capitol-riot-subpoenas-bannon-meadows-2021-09-23/">Bannon and</a> <a href="https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-subpoenas-peter-navarro">Navarro subpoenas</a> were issued by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. </p>
<p>The subpoenas required both men to testify before the committee and produce documents related to the 2020 presidential election and the January 2021 attack. </p>
<p>But Bannon and Navarro declined to provide any documents or even to appear before the committee as the subpoenas directed. Both claimed they <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4175318-navarro-says-trump-wanted-him-to-assert-privileges-during-jan-6-panel-investigation/">did not have to comply with the subpoenas</a> because, as presidential advisers, they were absolutely immune to congressional orders and because former President Donald Trump had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-committee-rejects-bannon-privilege-argument-jan-6-probe-2021-10-18/">asserted executive privilege</a> over the requested information – which meant they couldn’t produce it to Congress.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a suit with white hair looking pensive." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559457/original/file-20231114-21-brrevk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Peter Navarro, after being found guilty of contempt of Congress at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse on Sept. 7, 2023, in Washington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/peter-navarro-an-advisor-to-former-u-s-president-donald-news-photo/1666307036?adppopup=true">Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The committee and the full House <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/06/house-votes-dan-scavino-peter-navarro-in-contempt-00023619">voted to hold the subpoena recipients in contempt of Congress</a>. The committee referred their cases to the Department of Justice, requesting prosecution under <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2010-title2/USCODE-2010-title2-chap6-sec194">a federal law</a> that says if Congress refers a case, the Department of Justice shall present it to a grand jury.</p>
<p>Bannon was tried in July 2022; the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/politics/steve-bannon-contempt-of-congress-january-6-verdict/index.html">jury took only three hours to return a guilty verdict</a>. Navarro went to trial on Sept. 7, 2023; the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/us/politics/navarro-contempt-trial-jury.html">jury found him guilty the same day</a>. Bannon was sentenced to four months imprisonment and fined US$6,500. In addition to his sentence of four months in prison, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/peter-navarro-sentence-contempt/">Navarro has been fined $9,500</a>. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-trump-adviser-navarro-convicted-contempt-congress-2023-09-07/">Both men</a> have said they will appeal their convictions. </p>
<h2>Criminal penalties</h2>
<p>Congressional investigations are part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances and can include examining actions taken by the executive branch. </p>
<p>In the past, for example, Congress has evaluated government waste, fraud and <a href="https://www.levin-center.org/harry-truman-and-the-investigation-of-waste-fraud-abuse-in-world-war-ii/">abuse</a>; <a href="https://www.levin-center.org/frank-church-and-the-church-committee/">troubling covert intelligence operations</a>; and <a href="https://www.levin-center.org/the-watergate-hearings/">government misconduct</a>. </p>
<p>When Congress begins asking questions, executive branch officials have sometimes refused to provide requested information.</p>
<p>Using its authority granted in the Constitution, Congress has previously imprisoned individuals for defying a congressional subpoena. <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45653">But that last occurred in 1935</a>. </p>
<p>When Congress has referred cases to the Department of Justice under the law requiring presentation to a grand jury, the department has <a href="https://levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/shaub-the_executive_s_privilege.pdf">routinely declined to prosecute</a> executive branch officials who are following presidential instructions to withhold information. Essentially, the department hasn’t chosen to prosecute officials from its own administration.</p>
<p>The change in pattern in the Bannon and Navarro cases may have occurred in part because the Biden Justice Department was asked to prosecute people associated with the Trump administration, and the withheld information involved a matter of rare constitutional significance. </p>
<p>The Bannon and Navarro convictions demonstrate for the first time in over 80 years that if the Department of Justice chooses to use them, statutory criminal prosecutions and penalties offer a feasible and forceful tool to protect congressional inquiries.</p>
<p>The House committee that requested the information from Bannon and Navarro has disbanded, so the two criminal cases will not be supplying it with any new information. But the contempt prosecutions, if they end up punishing the defendants’ misconduct, could create a potentially significant deterrent to those thinking about defying a congressional subpoena.</p>
<h2>Executive privilege</h2>
<p>Another key aspect of both cases involves the issue of executive privilege. Executive privilege enables the president to withhold information from Congress when it is in the public interest. <a href="https://www.levin-center.org/congress-first-investigation-general-st-clairs-defeat/">President George Washington was the first</a> to articulate the principle in 1792.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court first recognized executive privilege as constitutionally legitimate in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766">United States v. Nixon</a>, while also ruling that President Richard Nixon could not use the privilege to quash a grand jury subpoena of conversations recorded in the Oval Office, because “fundamental” due process and fairness required the prosecutor to have access to the tapes as part of a criminal inquiry. The Supreme Court has since provided little additional guidance on how to claim executive privilege or what it protects.</p>
<p>Both Republican and Democratic administrations have subsequently claimed that, due to executive privilege and other separation of powers concerns, presidential advisers are absolutely immune to congressional subpoenas, despite court rulings to the contrary. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-mazars-usa-llp-2">Trump v. Mazars</a>, when President Trump sought to block the disclosure of certain personal financial documents to Congress, the Supreme Court pointedly ignored his claims of absolute immunity to congressional subpoenas. Instead, the court established a new test enabling Congress to subpoena certain information involving the president and sent the cases back to the lower courts to apply the test to the subpoenas at issue. </p>
<p>Following that Supreme Court guidance, the Bannon and Navarro district courts rejected the defendants’ immunity claims, although it is likely the defendants will bring up the issue again in their appeals.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large room filled with people, including almost a dozen at a long table at the front of the room, with a large screen behind them that says them that says 'Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/559459/original/file-20231114-17-kgyfft.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A June 9, 2022, hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/capitol-police-officer-caroline-edwards-and-british-news-photo/1241208542?adppopup=true">Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Also significant is that the two district court judges in the Bannon and Navarro cases refused to allow either defendant to raise an executive privilege defense at trial. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/stephen-k-bannon-found-guilty-jury-two-counts-contempt-congress">In the Bannon case</a>, the court held that he never proved that Trump asserted executive privilege over the requested information and that, while Bannon was an adviser to Trump in 2017, he was not in 2020, which was the time period covered by the congressional subpoena. <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/former-white-house-advisor-convicted-contempt-congress">In the Navarro case</a>, while Navarro was a presidential adviser in 2020, the court found him unable to prove that Trump ever asserted executive privilege over the subpoenaed information. </p>
<p>The inability to prove Trump instructed either of them to assert privilege suggests that neither defendant will be able to offer a strong executive privilege argument in their appeals.</p>
<h2>Strengthening Congress</h2>
<p>Unless reversed, the Bannon and Navarro cases have nudged open a door that had been effectively closed for 80 years, showing that federal prosecutors and juries can use criminal penalties to hold powerful political players accountable. </p>
<p>While their appeals continue, the two cases already suggest that criminal as well as civil enforcement of congressional subpoenas can work. If the convictions are upheld on appeal, Congress could even consider ways to make criminal prosecution a more viable option, perhaps by legislating new authority enabling Congress to require appointment of a special prosecutor to handle cases involving executive branch officials. </p>
<p>If Congress could appoint a special prosecutor, it would not have to rely on the Department of Justice to bring a prosecution. Of course, the special prosecutor would still have to try the criminal case in court before a judge and jury.</p>
<p>Equally important, the two cases may clarify the legal limits on executive privilege and absolute immunity.</p>
<p>The appeals court could, for example, bar future absolute immunity claims by executive branch officials subpoenaed by Congress. It could also make clear that executive privilege requires specific evidence to succeed in court. That includes proof that a current or former president asserted privilege, that the defendant was a presidential adviser at the relevant time, and that the defendant appeared before Congress and claimed the privilege on a question-by-question basis. </p>
<p>If the appeals court sustains those requirements, clarifying what has to be proved to assert executive privilege could affect not only criminal but also civil enforcement efforts, strengthening the hand of Congress when facing nebulous assertions of executive privilege.</p>
<p>The D.C. Court of Appeals held <a href="https://rollcall.com/2023/11/09/appeals-court-skeptical-of-bannon-push-to-overturn-contempt-of-congress-convictions/">oral argument in the Bannon case on Nov. 9</a>; the Navarro case will follow. How the appeals process unfolds will determine the extent to which the Bannon and Navarro contempt of Congress convictions will create an effective deterrent to executive branch defiance of Congress’ authority to subpoena information. Curbing noncompliance with congressional subpoenas promises, in turn, to strengthen Congress’ ability to serve as a constitutional check on the executive branch.</p>
<p><em>This story has been updated to reflect Navarro’s four-month prison sentence.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise J. Bean does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The conviction and incarceration of 2 former Trump aides who refused to comply with the House Jan. 6 committee’s information requests could revive a potent tool for accountability.Elise J. Bean, Director of the Washington Office of the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy, Wayne State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2121882023-08-31T12:19:42Z2023-08-31T12:19:42ZSpecial counsels, like the one leading the Justice Department’s investigation of Hunter Biden, are intended to be independent − but they aren’t entirely<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545070/original/file-20230828-25-umot03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=35%2C17%2C5955%2C3970&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attorney General Merrick Garland announces on Aug. 11, 2023, that he has appointed a special counsel to handle the investigations into Hunter Biden.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/attorney-general-merrick-garland-conducts-a-news-conference-news-photo/1592786287">Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/06/20/1087173827/hunter-biden">June 20</a>, 2023, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-colorful-presidential-relatives-from-alice-roosevelt-to-hunter-biden-208183">Hunter Biden</a>, the second son of President Joe Biden, entered into <a href="https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/plea-agreement#google_vignette">a plea agreement</a> with prosecutors <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/hunter-biden-agrees-to-plea-deal-for-income-tax-and-illegal-weapon-charges">related to tax-related charges and the illegal possession of a firearm</a>.</p>
<p>On <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/hunter-biden-plea-deal-00108276">July 26</a>, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/proposed-hunter-biden-plea-agreement-00108426">the plea agreement</a> was challenged by <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maryellen-noreika-trump-appointed-judge-weighing-hunter-bidens/story?id=101670909">the judge in the case</a>. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190211798/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges">She wanted to know more</a> about any immunity being offered, given that Hunter Biden is under several <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/hunter-biden-legal-troubles-timeline.html">federal investigations</a>.</p>
<p>After the prosecution and defense <a href="https://theconversation.com/hunter-bidens-plea-agreement-renegotiation-is-rare-a-law-professor-explains-what-usually-happens-210531">failed to renegotiate</a> the deal, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Aug. 11 that <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/meet-us-attorney">U.S. Attorney David Weiss</a>, the Donald Trump-appointed lead federal prosecutor for Delaware who had already been investigating the case, had been <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-2">appointed as special counsel</a> so that he would have “the authority he needs to conduct a thorough investigation and to continue to take the steps he deems appropriate independently, based only on the facts and the law.”</p>
<p>After the appointment, Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, <a href="https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-statement-on-the-appointment-of-us-attorney-weiss-as-special-counsel-to-investigate-hunter-biden-matters">praised Garland</a> for being “committed to avoiding even the appearance of politicization at the Justice Department.”</p>
<p>Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, however, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/sen-graham-slams-doj-special-counsel-hunter-biden-probe-dumb-political-decision">attacked Weiss’ appointment</a> as “<a href="https://youtu.be/nxmlZMIEqio?feature=shared&t=376">a dumb political decision,</a>” despite having <a href="https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hunter%20Biden%20Special%20Counsel%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf">previously supported it</a>. </p>
<p>From my perspective as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vXXZBEkAAAAJ&hl=en">a political scientist</a>, I believe that while special counsels are intended to be independent, in practice they aren’t entirely. Here’s why.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man stands at a lectern and gestures with one hand." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=717&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=717&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=717&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545071/original/file-20230828-21-az92sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">David Weiss, pictured here in 2009, has been a federal prosecutor in Delaware since 2007. He is now also a special counsel investigating Hunter Biden.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/IranSmugglingCharges/583ef025e2af4147807840b335c4e391/photo">AP Photo/Ron Soliman</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Independent and special counsels</h2>
<p>Ensuring impartiality in the Justice Department can be difficult, as the attorney general is <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-president-pick-the-attorney-general-141333">appointed by</a> – and answerable to – a partisan president. This gives presidents the power to try to compel attorneys general to pursue a political agenda. President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/">Richard Nixon</a> did this during the investigation of the Watergate break-in, which threatened to implicate him in criminal acts. </p>
<p>On the evening of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/21/659279158/a-brief-history-of-nixons-saturday-night-massacre">Oct. 20, 1973</a>, Nixon ordered Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/richardson-elliot-lee">Elliot Richardson</a> to fire <a href="https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/archibald-cox">Archibald Cox</a>, whom Richardson had appointed to lead the Watergate investigation. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783492672/william-ruckelshaus-who-defied-nixon-in-saturday-night-massacre-has-died-at-87">William Ruckelshaus</a> to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon ordered Solicitor General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/robert-h-bork">Robert Bork</a>, the next most senior official at the Justice Department, to fire Cox. Bork complied. </p>
<p>This shocking series of events, often referred to as the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuthKhjAfk">Saturday Night Massacre</a>, demonstrated how presidents could exercise political power over criminal investigations.</p>
<p>As a result of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf">Ethics in Government Act of 1978</a>. This allowed for investigations into misconduct that could operate outside of presidential control.</p>
<p>After passage of this legislation, if the attorney general received “specific information” alleging that the president, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-vice-president-do-152467">vice president</a> or other <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/591">high-ranking executive branch officials</a> had committed a serious federal offense, the attorney general would ask a special three-judge panel to appoint an independent counsel, who would investigate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo of a man in a suit pointing at a table stacked with bound volumes." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545072/original/file-20230828-158158-fmojfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Richard Nixon, here pointing to transcripts of White House tapes he agreed to turn over to congressional investigators, was an inspiration for the 1978 law that created truly independent counsels. It expired in 1999.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PresidentsLegalTroubles/dbf0e83250c040109016f9bbb50081ea/photo">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Ethics in Government Act also disqualified Justice Department employees, including the attorney general, from participating in any investigation or prosecution that could “<a href="https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf">result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest</a>, or the appearance thereof.”</p>
<p>In the decades since the law’s passage, independent counsels investigated <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=814877">Republicans</a> and <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf">Democrats</a> alike. In 1999, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/01/independent.counsel/">Congress</a> let the Ethics in Government Act expire. That year, then-Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/testimony/1999/aggovern031799.htm">Janet Reno</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/counsels/stories/counsel063099.htm">authorized</a> the appointment of special counsels, who could investigate certain sensitive matters, similar to the way independent counsels operated. </p>
<p>Robert Mueller, who was appointed in <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel">2017</a> by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-interventions-in-other-peoples-elections-a-brief-history-74406">possible Russian interference</a> in the 2016 elections and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fbis-russia-probe-threatens-a-reckoning-for-team-trump-75002">possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government</a>, was a special counsel. Some Republicans accused him of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42372603">bias</a>, despite his long career serving under <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582358540/muellers-reputation-in-washington-is-stunningly-bipartisan-journalist-says">both Democratic and Republican presidents</a>.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham">2020</a>, John Durham – another <a href="https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/u-s-attorney-for-connecticut-john-durham-resigns/2432294/">veteran</a> of the Justice Department – was appointed as special counsel to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf">investigate</a> the origins of the investigation that triggered Mueller’s appointment. Michael Sussmann, a former Democratic Party lawyer and target of that probe, accused Durham of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080841516/john-durham-sussmann-trump-russia-investigation">political prosecution</a>. Sussmann was later <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/politics/michael-sussmann-durham-fbi.html">acquitted</a>.</p>
<h2>Politicizing the process</h2>
<p>Although special counsels were meant to resemble independent counsels, there are notable differences.</p>
<p><a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43112.pdf">For instance</a>, while special counsels operate independently of the attorney general, both their appointment and the scope of their investigations are determined by the attorney general. In contrast, the appointment of independent counsels and the scope of their investigations were determined by a three-judge panel, which in turn was appointed by the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx">chief justice</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/states-pick-judges-very-differently-from-us-supreme-court-appointments-160142">of the United States</a>.</p>
<p>Also, since Congress authorized independent counsels, presidential influence was limited by law. In contrast, since Justice Department regulations authorize special counsels, a president could try to compel the attorney general to change departmental interpretation of these regulations – or even just revoke them entirely – to influence or <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/can-trump-fire-special-counsel-robert-mueller-239500">end</a> a special counsel investigation. </p>
<p>For example, on at least one occasion, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html">sought to have Mueller dismissed</a>. When his attorney general, <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-things-jeff-sessions-did-as-attorney-general-that-history-should-remember-106614">Jeff Sessions</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235181043881299969">refused to comply</a>, Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/04/an-emboldened-trump-says-quiet-part-out-loud-about-why-he-fired-jeff-sessions/">fired</a> him.</p>
<p>Sessions was later <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-president-pick-the-attorney-general-141333">replaced</a> by <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/barr-william-pelham">William Barr</a>, who previously served as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. Prior to his appointment, Barr sent an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department <a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">defending</a> Trump by arguing that presidents have “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf">complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding</a>.” </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234938">In my own research</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.04.006">I have found</a> that abuses of power are more common in situations in which the president and the attorney general are political allies.</p>
<p>For instance, after Mueller finished his <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download">report</a> in 2019, Barr released a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-attorney-general-barr-s-principal-conclusions-of-the-mueller-report/218b8095-c5e3-4eab-9135-4170f5b3e87f/">summary</a> of its “principal conclusions.” Later, Barr’s summary was criticized for “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/special-counsel-mueller-s-letter-to-attorney-general-barr/e32695eb-c379-4696-845a-1b45ad32fff1/">not fully captur[ing] the context, nature, and substance</a>” of Mueller’s work.</p>
<p>In 2020, a Republican-appointed judge <a href="https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/bd363044-e2ec-4a02-b0b3-43fbc48b2f49/note/f003c01c-cde9-4c1e-a926-bc74e461ca7f.pdf">ruled</a> that Barr “failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report” and questioned whether Barr had “made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse … in favor of President Trump.”</p>
<h2>To be or not to be free of partisanship</h2>
<p>The independence of the Justice Department rests, in part, <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-merrick-garland-joe-bidens-pick-for-attorney-general-be-independent-in-that-role-history-says-its-unlikely-151952">on who occupies</a> the offices of president and attorney general.</p>
<p>Trump, for example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-impeachment-trump-declares-himself-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-of-america/2020/02/18/b8ff49c0-5290-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html">saw himself</a> as “the chief law enforcement officer of the country” and thought it was appropriate to “be totally involved.” </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Joe Biden has <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3093&context=nclr">a long history</a> of supporting the independence of Justice Department investigations, dating back to his <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/chairman/previous">1987-1995 tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee</a>.</p>
<p>Barr once <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-was-right-to-fire-sally-yates/2017/02/01/5981d890-e809-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html">argued</a> that the attorney general’s role is to advance “all colorable arguments that can [be] mustered … when the president determines an action is within his authority – even if that conclusion is debatable.” </p>
<p>In contrast, Garland – a former U.S. circuit judge – <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-b-garland">insists</a> that “political or other improper considerations must play no role in any investigative or prosecutorial decisions.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1690111067576254464"}"></div></p>
<figure><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has claimed the Biden administration is using the Justice Department unfairly.</span></figcaption></figure>
<p>Garland has served as attorney general for only 2½ years, yet at this point he has appointed more special counsels than <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-russia-investigations-idINKCN1R01C1">any of</a> <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/13/special-counsel-history-biden-trump-classified">his predecessors</a>.</p>
<p>The first, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0">Jack Smith</a>, is overseeing investigations into former President Donald Trump’s role in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/pro-trump-rioters-storm-u-s-capitol-as-his-election-tantrum-leads-to-violence-149142">Jan. 6 insurrection</a>, as well as Trump’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fbis-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-reveals-how-trump-may-have-compromised-national-security-a-legal-expert-answers-5-key-questions-189500">handling of classified government documents</a> upon leaving office in 2021. The second, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-1">Robert Hur</a>, is overseeing President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents after leaving office as <a href="https://theconversation.com/kamala-harris-has-tied-the-record-for-the-most-tie-breaking-votes-in-senate-history-a-brief-overview-of-what-vice-presidents-do-210444">vice president</a> in 2017. Weiss’ investigation of Hunter Biden is Garland’s third special counsel appointment.</p>
<p>However, despite attempts by Garland to keep sensitive cases an arm’s length away, the reality is that special counsels – by design – are not as independent as the independent counsels of the past. As a result, the perception of <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109423468870178087">political prosecution</a> can be hard to avoid.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/special-counsels-like-those-examining-bidens-and-trumps-handling-of-classified-documents-are-intended-to-be-independent-but-they-arent-entirely-197773">article</a> published Jan. 13, 2023, which was an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/special-counsels-like-the-one-leading-the-department-of-justices-investigation-of-trump-are-intended-to-be-independent-but-they-arent-entirely-195640">article</a> originally published Dec. 14, 2022.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212188/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Holzer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Special counsels can help presidential administrations avoid the perception of bias, but they are not as independent as the independent counsels of the past.Joshua Holzer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Westminster CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2117132023-08-23T12:22:14Z2023-08-23T12:22:14ZTrump’s classified-documents indictment does more than allege crimes − it tells a compelling story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543983/original/file-20230822-8562-thzo0f.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=37%2C0%2C8395%2C5613&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The indictment of Donald Trump and an aide was 'laced with rhetorical and narrative techniques.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-pages-are-viewed-from-the-news-photo/1258567549?adppopup=true">Photo Illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When special counsel Jack Smith announced <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-trump-indictment-on-mishandling-of-classified-documents">the charges he was bringing against former President Donald Trump</a> for retaining government documents, he did something unusual: He invited the public to <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?528657-1/special-counsel-jack-smith-statement-indictment-donald-trump">read the formal legal document, known as an indictment, detailing the allegations</a>. </p>
<p>And many did – concluding not only that the indictment was <a href="https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2023/06/13/trump-documents-indictment-florida-jane-rosenzweig">well-written</a> but <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/the-trump-indictment-speaks-for-itself">engaging</a>.</p>
<p>I <a href="https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=274">study the ethics</a> of using narrative and rhetoric in legal persuasion. I am also a lawyer. I know that nothing required Smith and his team at the Department of Justice to write this way. Although legal scholars have <a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2177/">called for a more stringent standard</a>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7">the law requires only</a> that a federal indictment include a “plain, concise, and definite” outline of the “essential facts” of the case – just enough to help the defense attorney understand what the client faces. Prosecutors could have cleared this hurdle by writing a technocratic document intelligible only to other criminal law insiders.</p>
<p>Instead, they wrote what in legal circles is called a “speaking” indictment. This indictment told a story. And not just any story – one laced with rhetorical and narrative techniques to not just help the public understand the case, but more, to persuade readers that the prosecution is justified.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pRG7GyERubQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘I invite everyone to read it in full,’ said special counsel Jack Smith of the indictment against Trump.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Show, don’t tell</h2>
<p>Here are some examples of how the indictment tells a story aimed at persuading readers:</p>
<p><strong>The storage boxes:</strong> Trump’s now famous boxes are introduced by, first, the use of selective detail to paint a sentimental scrapbooking scene: We imagine Trump gathering what are described as “newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes.” Yet among this image of keepsakes, notes the next paragraph, were documents about “defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; [and] potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack.”</p>
<p><strong>Mar-a-Lago:</strong> These boxes didn’t remain at the White House; after Trump’s presidency ended, he took them to Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutors could have just referred to Trump’s “Florida residence” or listed a street address. But doing so might not only be boring but also leave readers with their own stock sense of what a “residence” is. </p>
<p>So they brought Mar-a-Lago to life, describing it as an “active social club” with “more than 25 guest rooms, two ballrooms, a spa, [and] a gift store” that, in the relevant period, hosted “150 social events, including weddings, movie premieres, and fundraisers that together drew tens of thousands of guests.” It was into this Gatsbyesque scene that Trump brought his boxes.</p>
<p>True, Mar-a-Lago does have a “storage room” where many boxes were put. But here, too, indictment authors counter readers’ image of what that might mean. This isn’t a room in a quiet basement corner, but rather one in a hallway with “multiple outside entrances,” near high-traffic areas like a “liquor supply closet” and “linen room.” In a moment of almost Shakespearean comedy, the indictment shows Trump employees in this setting chancing upon confidential documents spilled out on the floor. One texts, “I opened the door and found this…” to which the other replies, “Oh no oh no.”</p>
<p><strong>The photos</strong>: Readers are not merely told that Trump stored highly sensitive intelligence materials at less-than-secure locations throughout Mar-a-Lago, they are shown <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photos-from-trump-indictment-show-boxes-of-classified-documents-stored-in-mar-a-lago-shower-ballroom">photos of boxes</a> on a stage and in a bathroom. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Boxes piled on a stage in a fancy room." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543762/original/file-20230821-23-4fy72z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boxes at former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., in a photo included by the Justice Department in its indictment of Trump for hoarding government documents.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-photo-provided-by-the-u-s-department-of-news-photo/1258567092">U.S. Department of Justice via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Boxes stacked in a bathroom." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543764/original/file-20230821-19-ngzw9c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this handout photo provided by the Justice Department, stacks of boxes are stored in a bathroom and shower at former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-photo-provided-by-the-u-s-department-of-news-photo/1258566797">Photo by U.S. Department of Justice via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These images not only keep readers engaged by breaking up the text but also reinforce the Department of Justice’s written allegations. And because viewers <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-12251-001">assume images to be true without reflection</a>, including this photographic evidence as visual allegations is especially effective. </p>
<p><strong>Plot inferences</strong>: As with any nonfiction story, the indictment has gaps. Readers know that phone calls occurred but not what was said. Readers know that actions took place one after another but not that the first caused the second. But through careful arrangement, the authors prime readers to fill in these gaps. </p>
<p>Using Trump’s own words, the indictment encourages readers to imagine him, to hear him, thinking out loud: “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes … wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here? … isn’t it better if there are no documents?” Then, starting a page later, readers twice see Trump speak to an employee for less than half a minute. They don’t know what’s said, but in both cases the next sentence after each phone call shows that employee moving boxes in, and then out, of the storage room. </p>
<p>Readers could infer what’s going on: Trump ordered that the boxes be moved and did so to conceal their contents. Without even realizing it, readers complete the story, giving content to the phone calls and meaning to the actions that followed them.</p>
<p>Throughout the indictment, writing techniques such as these <a href="https://www.alwd.org/index.php?option=com_attachments&task=download&id=290">transport readers through a story portal</a> so that they see Mar-a-Lago, hear Trump barking orders and feel his motivations; the case’s disparate facts cohere into a vivid, engaging story.</p>
<h2>‘It’s only one side’</h2>
<p>A bare-bones, legalistic indictment would do none of these things. Nonexpert readers would gloss over it. The public would be left with just Trump’s claims about what the case was about. In contrast, Smith’s approach helps the public understand this historic prosecution.</p>
<p>So maybe more prosecutors should write this way. </p>
<p>But not every defendant has Trump’s power or influence. Not every defendant can broadcast a story for an indictment to then counter. Instead, an indictment full of persuasive storytelling techniques might frame the public’s first, and sometimes only, impressions. </p>
<p>Unlike in a Supreme Court case, where both sides get to share their story of what happened and should happen next, at the indictment stage the prosecutor is the only one speaking. If such a case settles before trial through a plea agreement, or if after trial the case isn’t appealed, then the defendant may never have a chance to present a public, written story.</p>
<p>Prosecutors wield incredible power. This includes the power to persuade through storytelling. While admiring the writing of Smith and his team here, readers should also be aware: It’s only one side of the story.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211713/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek H. Kiernan-Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Department of Justice prosecutors could have composed a technocratic document intelligible only to other criminal law insiders when indicting Donald Trump in the documents case. They did much more.Derek H. Kiernan-Johnson, Teaching Professor of Law, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2114592023-08-11T20:31:29Z2023-08-11T20:31:29ZTrump’s free speech faces court-ordered limits, like any other defendant’s – 2 law professors explain why, and how Trump’s lawyers need to watch themselves too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542406/original/file-20230811-32774-57feev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C36%2C8179%2C5424&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., where an Aug. 11, 2023, hearing was held on the Trump case. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-e-barrett-prettyman-us-courthouse-in-washington-dc-on-news-photo/1578722707?adppopup=true">Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>A 90-minute court hearing on Aug. 11, 2023, that would have been routine in almost any other case was, in fact, historic. It was the first time lawyers prosecuting and defending former President Donald Trump on charges he attempted to overturn the 2020 election <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/trump-judge-protective-order.html">appeared before the federal judge in the case</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>At issue in the hearing before Judge Tanya Chutkan were public statements about what in legal terms is called “discovery” – defined by the American Bar Association as “<a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/">the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they will present at trial</a>.” Prosecutors from the Department of Justice wanted Chutkan to bar Trump and his lawyers from releasing or commenting publicly on those materials with something called a “protective order,” because public comments could end up intimidating witnesses or tainting the pool of potential jurors. Trump’s lawyers said any limit on the right to speak about the documents violated Trump’s free speech rights.</em></p>
<p><em>Chutkan told Trump’s lawyers <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23907641-protective-order-in-us-v-trump">she would impose limits on what he could say</a>. “I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements in this case,” she said. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to protect the integrity of these proceedings.” The Conversation’s senior politics and society editor, Naomi Schalit, interviewed attorneys Thomas A. Durkin and Joseph Ferguson, law professors at Loyola University, Chicago, about the hearing.</em></p>
<h2>Do people lose their First Amendment rights when they are criminally indicted?</h2>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: You don’t really lose your rights, but the discovery process requires certain restrictions on what you can do with what are essentially government documents and information. So I’m not sure that’s a restriction of the First Amendment. From what I heard, the judge said to Trump and his lawyer, certain things are going to be restricted, and some of your rights are going to be limited. I don’t see that as a horribly difficult imposition.</p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: A defendant experiences this as a constraint. <a href="https://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facultyandadministrationprofiles/durkin-thomas.shtml">But Tom</a> <a href="https://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facultyandadministrationprofiles/ferguson-joseph.shtml">and I</a> know, as longtime lawyers, if you put yourself in that situation, you’re not being constrained from doing something you otherwise have a right to do. You have put the constraint on yourself. </p>
<p>This is not a limitation on Trump’s standing free speech rights. They are not absolute and must operate within the confines of the competing interest of justice in this case. The initial reports are that the judge has made clear that justice trumps other considerations. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Three men in suits walk along a sidewalk." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542405/original/file-20230811-17-uco1u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attorneys for former U.S. President Donald Trump − John Lauro, left, and Todd Blanche, right − arrive at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse on Aug. 11, 2023, in Washington, D.C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/attorneys-for-former-u-s-president-donald-trump-todd-news-photo/1607549903?adppopup=true">Win McNamee/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What did the judge say?</h2>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: The judge has signaled that Trump’s rights as a criminal defendant are subject to the rules of the court. This will frame all subsequent decisions. The judge and the lawyers as officers of the court have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, against the backdrop of the integrity of the criminal justice system. </p>
<p>Trump and his team are attempting to infuse politics into the case and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-retribution-indictment-documents-biden-american-democracy-5a8ec37b359fee85d0f0956139d79f51">denigrate, delegitimize and politicize the prosecutors</a> and the court itself and all of the players. That heightens the need for the judge to lay down the bright line. The normal concerns for a judge in these cases is the possible tainting of the jury pool, the intimidation of witnesses and other forms of interference with the process of justice.</p>
<p>We are not just talking only about the defendant. His lawyers have been appearing everywhere on TV. What the judge says and rules about the limitations on what lawyers can say – and her enforcement of those – may be as important as anything else here. Trump’s lawyers are his proxies not only for the case itself but for his political purposes, to try the case in the public.</p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: I recently said that it seemed to me Trump was looking for a mouthpiece and not a lawyer. And I think there is a fear, as Joe says, of the client dictating to the lawyers what to do. A lot of people have commented publicly how unprofessional the quotes of many of his lawyers seem to be and that they seem to be sometimes making <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/msnbc-panel-stunned-by-trump-lawyer-john-lauros-admission-on-fox-news">admissions on his behalf</a>. They don’t seem to be very experienced in dealing with the press.</p>
<p>Where I would probably part company a little bit with Joe is that it’s of course the defendant’s lawyers’ desire to <a href="https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/223-3">taint the jury pool</a>. That’s the name of the game. But there are ways to do it professionally and there are ways not to do it. </p>
<h2>The government is pushing for a speedy trial. How does that strike you?</h2>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: There is something bigger that’s involved here. Existing Department of Justice practice is you don’t take a matter to trial in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/04/us/trump-investigations-midterm-elections.html">60 days before an election</a>. That is certainly on the prosecution’s mind. But one thing that those rules really don’t contemplate is the contemporary world, in which we’re in a constant state of elections and electioneering, which is certainly the case for Trump.</p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: It’s kind of a reverse of the typical kind of case. And the government is attempting to dump all this discovery material on the defense right away so that Trump’s lawyers can’t claim, “We need more time.” </p>
<h2>The court session on Friday was focused on the terms of a protective order, which would determine what materials and information could be made public, right?</h2>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: These orders are routine in any case that includes highly sensitive information or itself is a matter of major public controversy. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People wave Trump and DeSantis banners, along with a large picture of Trump's face, as they sit on top of a float with a red, white and blue star banner on the side of it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542359/original/file-20230811-25-1lxw2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Members of the Republican Party in Iowa show support for different 2024 candidates, including former president Donald Trump, at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 9, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/members-of-the-republican-party-of-iowa-show-their-support-news-photo/1604340712?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>So the hearing was about what Trump’s lawyers could say, not just Trump?</h2>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: I’m working on a case where the judge’s protective order requires that anything that’s going to be filed that is sensitive material has to be filed under seal. That greatly limits the lawyers’ ability to file speaking motions – motions with a lot of detail – in the public domain. Speaking motions, like Smith’s speaking indictment, are one of the ways a good defense lawyer can attempt to influence the jury, because you can dump documents into pleadings with impunity. </p>
<h2>So you’re saying that lawyers can use those motions as a way to sneak in stuff that normally wouldn’t be able to get before the public.</h2>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: Yes.</p>
<h2>What did the prosecution ask for in this hearing?</h2>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: From what I understood, the prosecution wanted everything to be labeled sensitive, which is very unusual. </p>
<h2>If materials are labeled sensitive, you have to keep your lips zipped?</h2>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: Yes. It relates to who you can show the materials to, whether you can leave them copies, whether you have to file them under seal or not. And that’s not an uncommon fight that people have. </p>
<h2>So the government wanted to just get this done with and call everything sensitive and not have fights about each document they’re giving the defense.</h2>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: There are two approaches here. One is the government’s approach, which is just put the whole thing under the protective order so the defense gets immediate access, and the judge and the parties can sort out problems later as the case moves along. While the defense wants it sorted out now, which would take time and cause delay. </p>
<h2>At one point, Trump’s lawyers said keeping all of the discovery documents secret would be giving an advantage to Joe Biden.</h2>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: I look at that as goading the judge into conceding that what she’s doing is going to have an effect on politics. She didn’t bite – she kept a clean line here, saying, not my role, not my concern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211459/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What can President Trump and his lawyers say about documents and witness statements used as evidence in his upcoming trial over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election?Thomas A. Durkin, Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Loyola University ChicagoJoseph Ferguson, Co-Director, National Security and Civil Rights Program, Loyola University ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2109342023-08-09T12:30:53Z2023-08-09T12:30:53ZDonald Trump is right − he is getting special treatment, far better than most other criminal defendants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541557/original/file-20230807-27-gfyv3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The former president boards his plane at Reagan National Airport following his Aug. 3, 2023, arraignment in Washington. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-boards-his-plane-at-news-photo/1590575964?adppopup=true">Win McNamee/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former President Donald Trump often <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-retribution-indictment-documents-biden-american-democracy-5a8ec37b359fee85d0f0956139d79f51">complains that he is being treated unfairly</a> by the prosecutors charging him with crimes.</p>
<p>Trump is now <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/">the subject of three federal and state criminal cases</a> – and it is true that he is being treated unlike other criminal defendants. </p>
<p>The prosecutors are treating Trump a lot better than the average criminal defendant. </p>
<p>We <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XiBXb6cAAAAJ&hl=en">are law scholars</a> who have defended clients in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9GZnzpQAAAAJ&hl=en">criminal and civil cases,</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9GZnzpQAAAAJ&hl=en">we wish that</a> our clients received the advantages that prosecutors are giving Trump. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Donald Trump is seen pumping his fist in the air, benefath a Trump Tower sign in gold, and standing among other men in suits," src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541563/original/file-20230807-34729-7hx701.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower ahead of his arraignment in New York in April 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-pumps-his-fist-as-he-news-photo/1479780014?adppopup=true">Scott Olson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Early warnings</h2>
<p>Trump’s unique treatment began before he was even charged with any crime.
First, he had ample warning of the investigations because he got <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-target-letter-3-things-to-know-about-how-the-justice-department-notifies-suspects-like-donald-trump-ahead-of-possible-charges-210032">letters from the Justice Department</a> saying he was a target of each investigation. These letters were sent to Trump a few weeks before his two federal indictments in June and July 2023.</p>
<p>Especially in <a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.152">white-collar cases</a>, criminal defendants sometimes receive <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-investigation-2020-election-7caa4d45b9dc287af868aa12f87fe254">target letters</a> that warn them of an impending indictment and sometimes give them the chance to testify.</p>
<p>But target letters generally lack detail and are far from the norm across all criminal cases. Target letters are not legally required. The Justice Department spells out various reasons why its prosecutors <a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.153">do not need to send them</a>, including risks of a defendant destroying evidence or endangering witnesses.</p>
<h2>The difference freedom makes</h2>
<p>After Trump was charged with crimes in each of his three pending cases, his lawyers negotiated dates when he could submit to authorities for processing. </p>
<p>And after Trump’s brief arraignments in court, judges found he was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/donald-trump-indictment-court-appearance-06-13-23/h_a1a9eac55c1638585e314ea458d23729">not a flight risk</a> and released him. </p>
<p>Most criminal defendants are just arrested and taken to jail, where they may sit for months or even years while they await trial, unless they plead guilty. <a href="https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol115/iss5/1/">Three-quarters</a> of federal criminal defendants are locked up to await trial. </p>
<p>It is hard for detained defendants to <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/conviction-imprisonment-and-lost-earnings-how-involvement-criminal">recover lost wages and from the humiliation</a> they experience while in jail, even if they defy the odds and later win their case. </p>
<p>Pretrial detention has also been shown to result in a higher <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161503">chance of being convicted</a> and <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jleo/article/34/4/511/5100740">receiving longer sentences</a>. </p>
<p>Indeed, defendants in courts across the country plead guilty to crimes <a href="https://clearinghouse.net/doc/91291/">even if they are innocent</a>, in part because pleading guilty gets them home sooner. For some defendants, the pretrial detention is longer than their actual punishment will be, so pleading guilty resolves the case with credit for time served. But the stain of a conviction stays on their record forever.</p>
<h2>Benefits of time and freedom</h2>
<p>Because Trump is not sitting in jail, he is well positioned to ask that his trials be postponed far longer than would an ordinary criminal case. Federal law generally requires <a href="https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/speedy-trial-act-1974-defining-sixth-amendment-right">“speedy” trials</a>, which are considered a right to protect defendants.</p>
<p>Trump got a lengthy delay, though it’s not as long as his legal team requested. Trump asked that his classified documents trial be held after the November 2024 election, but his trial is scheduled to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/us/politics/trump-classified-documents-trial-date-cannon.html">begin in May 2024</a>. Federal prosecutors pushed for a December 2023 start date. These kinds of compromise decisions are common in legal decisions like deciding court dates.</p>
<p>This timing gives Trump’s lawyers nearly a year to prepare arguments in his favor. They can easily meet with their client to do so, something that would be difficult if Trump were incarcerated.</p>
<p>Most criminal defendants face a very different experience. </p>
<p>For example, after federal prosecutors charged Air Force reservist Jack Teixeira in June 2023 for <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/air-national-guardsman-indicted-unlawful-disclosure-classified-national-defense-information">revealing classified information</a>, he asked for provisions similar to those that judges made <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/17/politics/jack-teixeira-out-of-jail-classified-trump/index.html">for Trump</a>. </p>
<p>He argued that he, too, should be released to await trial. Teixeira did not have Trump’s wealth and easy ability to flee. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, the court determined that Teixeira poses a national security threat and must remain in jail. The case is still pending. </p>
<p>Other <a href="https://greaterjusticeny.vera.org/nycjail/">criminal defendants spend years in jail</a> before pleading guilty or perhaps going to trial.</p>
<h2>A treasure-trove of information</h2>
<p>The differences do not stop there. </p>
<p>Prosecutors in all three of Trump’s cases have explained, in great detail, the allegations against him. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/indictment-document-trump-jan-6-pdf/">classified documents indictment</a> recounted several text message conversations between Trump aides and transcribed a conversation in which Trump disclosed the contents of classified documents and acknowledged their classified status. </p>
<p>The indictment regarding Trump’s alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results was <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23893878-trump-dc-indictment">45 pages long</a> and included a play-by-play description of his plan. </p>
<p>Early in the documents case, federal prosecutors publicly disclosed <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/us/politics/trump-classified-documents-trial-date-cannon.html">key information about their investigation</a> that could have helped Trump’s legal defense.</p>
<p>In contrast, criminal defendants typically do not know the precise allegations facing them this early in a case. </p>
<p>Prosecutors often withhold documents until the eve of trial or <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3500">wait until after key witnesses have testified</a>, all of which is legal. <a href="https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Government_Misconduct_and_Convicting_the_Innocent.pdf">In some cases, they fail to disclose</a> the information. </p>
<h2>The other side of the coin</h2>
<p>Prosecutors’ decision to treat Trump differently from other criminal defendants could serve a few purposes.</p>
<p>The Justice Department is prosecuting a former president. That puts the department in a delicate, high-profile position, where it has the “Herculean task of putting an ethical rope through a needle,” as one former <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/12/trump-lawsuits-doj-dissonance-00105919">federal prosecutor has said.</a> </p>
<p>So, prosecutors’ detailed indictments help inform the public about the breadth and depth of the allegations made against Trump.</p>
<p>Their approach could add legitimacy to the prosecution’s and the Justice Department’s goal of maintaining <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-department-faces-biggest-test-history-election-conspiracy-102038277">accountability and independence</a> while countering Trump’s perception that the cases are “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/former-president-donald-trump-federal-probe-handling-sensitive-documents-witch-hunt/">a witch hunt</a>” and rooted only in politics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People wear neon green signs and hold up large letters spelling out the word 'justice' on a city street, in front of a building that looks similar to the U.S. Capitol." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541559/original/file-20230807-2559-1tn9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Demonstrators hold a sign outside of the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., where former President Donald Trump was arraigned in August 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/demonstrators-holding-a-justice-sign-stand-outside-of-the-news-photo/1575084924?adppopup=true">Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What would fairness look like?</h2>
<p>Those looking for fairness in the criminal justice system may wish to see Trump treated like an ordinary criminal defendant. But instead, what if everyone else accused of a crime were treated more like Trump?</p>
<p>In that world, perhaps most importantly, pretrial detention would be used quite sparingly and would not provide leverage to coerce guilty pleas. People who are charged with a crime have not been proven guilty, and pretrial detention inflicts serious harm on defendants, their cases and their loved ones.</p>
<p>Prosecutors would tell defendants from the earliest stage of the case the detailed allegations against them so that defendants can prepare a meaningful defense. </p>
<p>The U.S. legal system aims at the truth, and robust procedures serve that goal.</p>
<p>In our view, the more thorough the judicial process is, the more confident people can be that it reaches the right outcome – whether the case regards Trump or not. Looking at Trump’s special treatment offers a good place to start in thinking about how the criminal legal system should treat all people accused of a crime.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210934/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While Trump has received early warnings ahead of indictments and detailed explanations behind the charges, criminal defendants typically get a bare-bones explanation.Christopher Robertson, Professor of Law, Boston UniversityRussell M. Gold, Associate Professor of Law, University of AlabamaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2103632023-08-03T12:23:10Z2023-08-03T12:23:10ZTrump may try to delay his first federal trial – it’s a common legal strategy to fend off a criminal conviction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540477/original/file-20230801-22-j7rrdl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump speaks in Bedminster, N.J., in June 2023. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-speaks-at-the-trump-news-photo/1498281109?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/21/politics/trump-trial-date/index.html">President Donald Trump’s trial</a> for allegedly mishandling classified documents will begin on May 20, 2024. </p>
<p>At least that’s what Federal District Judge Aileen Cannon announced in mid-July 2023. </p>
<p>Trump’s <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/trump-criminal-case-judge-hears-bid-to-delay-trial.html">legal team unsuccessfully pushed</a> Cannon to delay his trial until after the election. </p>
<p>Federal prosecutors, meanwhile, wanted the trial to begin <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/21/judge-sets-trump-classified-documents-trial-for-next-may-00107566">as early as December 2023</a>. </p>
<p>Cannon split the difference. The date she set falls later than prosecutors wanted, and earlier than Trump wanted.</p>
<p>Trump is now also <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-most-serious-trump-indictment-yet-a-criminal-law-scholar-explains-the-charges-of-using-dishonesty-fraud-and-deceit-to-cling-to-power-210600">facing additional federal charges</a> for his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He is expected to be arraigned on Aug. 3, 2023, but it is not yet clear when his trial will begin. </p>
<p>Still, this May 2024 start date for his classified documents case should be entered on calendars only with a light pencil. As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X8tNfOsAAAAJ&hl=en">a legal ethics scholar and expert</a> on criminal trials, I have often observed that delaying a trial is a defense strategy, especially when the defense believes that the delay may <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-trial-delay-strategy-is-criminal-defense-101">weaken the prosecution’s case</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of men in suits walk down steps, flanked by people in black police uniforms." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540472/original/file-20230801-10044-aub4o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attorneys for former President Donald Trump, including Todd Blanche, center, leave the Alto Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse on July 18, 2023, in Fort Pierce, Fla.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/attorneys-for-former-president-donald-trump-todd-blanche-news-photo/1554099067?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Delay can be good for defendants</h2>
<p>In criminal cases in which the defendant is not in jail awaiting trial, there is a common belief that delay is good for defendants. Witnesses’ memories will not be fresh, and some witnesses may even disappear. The conventional wisdom among defense lawyers is that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/nyregion/justice-denied-courts-in-slow-motion-aided-by-defense.html">delays lead to acquittals</a>. </p>
<p>Trump’s defense team could try to delay the trial by filing various pretrial motions – meaning questions or requests to the court. </p>
<p>These legal requests could focus on what kind of evidence to admit or exclude at trial, or which witnesses should testify. For example, the defense team is likely to request that the Trump lawyers involved in the Mar-a-Lago search be excluded, claiming their communications with Trump are protected by attorney-client privilege. Whether the judge agrees to these requests or not doesn’t matter – at least, not at first. Once such a request is made, the other side usually has 21 days to reply, and often the judge will set a hearing on the request, which could cause a delay. </p>
<p>If there is a hearing on the request, the judge then may take days, and sometimes weeks, to issue a ruling on the request.</p>
<p>In Trump’s case, delaying the trial until after the election could mean that if Trump wins the presidency, he could have the Justice Department drop the case or he could try to pardon himself.</p>
<p>As Sean Walsh, who served in the White House press office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, explained, if Trump is elected president, that will be “<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4110644-trump-indictments-leave-him-fighting-for-higher-office-and-maybe-his-freedom/">his get out of jail free card</a>” if he is convicted in federal cases. But that would not apply to state prosecutions or convictions, which the president cannot control. </p>
<p>If voters pick another Republican as the presidential nominee and that person wins the general election, Trump could also ask that president to pardon him. </p>
<p>Indeed, one Republican candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, is urging all of the GOP 2024 White House contenders to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4047479-ramaswamy-pushes-2024-rivals-to-commit-to-pardoning-trump-over-federal-indictment/">commit to pardoning Trump</a>. </p>
<h2>Different ways to push the date</h2>
<p>Before the May 2024 trial date, Trump’s defense lawyers <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/11/trump-classified-documents-trial-date-2024-00105565">could argue that they need more time</a> to adequately prepare for trial. They could use this justification to push the start date back. </p>
<p>They could argue that, without more time, Trump will not get a fair trial because they will not be able to represent him effectively.</p>
<p>Cannon set May 14, 2024, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/21/politics/trump-trial-date/index.html#:%7E:text=A%20federal%20judge%20ordered%20Friday,be%20held%20on%20May%2014.">as the last hearing</a> before the trial, so Trump’s lawyers could conceivably wait until then to request a delay. </p>
<p>That motion alone would potentially delay the trial for weeks, if not months, if Cannon granted it. If Cannon denied the motion, an appeal to a higher court would also take weeks or months.</p>
<p>Additionally, the defense might find out new information during the <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/">discovery phase</a>, which involves the government’s turning over evidence and a list of witnesses. That would lead Trump’s legal team to try to exclude the new evidence or prosecution witnesses from the trial. </p>
<p>For example, the Justice Department has relied on evidence in some communications between Trump and one of his lawyers, E. Evan Corcoran, in its investigation. Trump’s lawyers are almost certain to ask that Cannon keep that evidence out of the trial by asking a different trial judge in Florida to rule that way. If Cannon allowed this request, the government would be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/us/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-trial.html">almost certain to appeal</a>.</p>
<p>That, too, would take time to work out in the court system as the judge considered the request. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large white building is seen with palm trees and streets covered with puddles." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540471/original/file-20230801-15-16gsh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump’s trial over mishandling classified documents is scheduled to begin at a federal Florida courthouse in May 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-alto-lee-adams-sr-united-states-courthouse-where-u-s-news-photo/1500102436?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Too early for action</h2>
<p>At this point, before there has been an exchange of discovery and witness lists, it is too early for Trump’s defense to appeal the May 2024 trial date. It is also too early from a strategic point of view.</p>
<p>Waiting until later in the pretrial process gives Trump additional opportunities to ask Cannon for more delays based on what his team learns through the discovery process. Even if Cannon does not grant an additional Trump request for delay, the defense could always appeal any such denial.</p>
<p>For these and potentially other possible reasons to delay the trial, Cannon’s setting the trial for May 20, 2024, is more tentative than it may seem. Trump’s defense lawyers will have other chances to seek additional delays. And Cannon is the primary – if not the only – person who will decide those requests. </p>
<p>Until her decision is appealed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter A. Joy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Delaying a trial by filing various requests and questions to the court might mean that witness memories are not as fresh, among other potential benefits for criminal defendants.Peter A. Joy, Professor of law, Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2104422023-08-02T20:39:28Z2023-08-02T20:39:28ZImmunity for witnesses is a key tool of prosecutors, whether they’re charging Trump or other alleged criminals – here’s how it works and what the limits are<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540826/original/file-20230802-26048-u6ul4j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C33%2C5580%2C3617&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A protester walks past the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. District Court House in Washington, on August 1, 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protester-walks-past-the-e-barrett-prettyman-u-s-district-news-photo/1586150197?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>At the heart of the alleged scheme for which Donald Trump was indicted on Aug. 1, 2023, was a fake electors plot designed to help him hold onto power after losing the 2020 presidential election.</em></p>
<p><em>In the U.S., people known as electors from each state and Washington, D.C., elect the president based on the popular vote.</em></p>
<p><em>According to the four-count indictment, Trump and two of six unnamed co-conspirators pulled together fraudulent slates of electors in seven key states in an attempt to subvert the real electors who were obligated, based on results of the popular vote, to cast ballots for Joe Biden. The fake electors cast fraudulent ballots for Trump.</em> </p>
<p><em>This latest indictment represents the most serious charges against Trump yet.</em></p>
<p><em>In Fulton County, Georgia, where there is an investigation into alleged fake electors underway, a court filing indicates that District Attorney Fani Willis <a href="https://apnews.com/article/fulton-county-election-investigation-trump-georgia-fb5240cf854eb546b027f950646268c2">granted immunity to eight fake electors</a>. And it’s possible that special counsel Jack Smith acted similarly in the federal probe. Based on anonymous sources, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/politics/special-counsel-fake-electors-immunity-testimony-jan-6/index.html">CNN reported that Smith compelled at least two fake electors</a> to testify before a Washington, D.C., grand jury by giving them limited immunity.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation U.S. asked legal scholar <a href="https://law.wayne.edu/profile/gb7147">William Ortman</a>, an associate professor of law at Wayne State University, to explain how immunity and limited immunity work.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Jack Smith wears a dark blue suit and a tie and is partially obscured by a dark wall." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540818/original/file-20230802-22768-6zixs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Special counsel Jack Smith arrives to give remarks following the Aug. 1, 2023, indictment of former President Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/special-counsel-jack-smith-arrives-to-give-remarks-on-a-news-photo/1570193282?adppopup=true">Dave Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does it mean when a witness is granted immunity?</h2>
<p>It depends on what kind of immunity we’re talking about. There are two basic types, which lawyers refer to as <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-717-transactional-immunity-distinguished">transactional immunity and use immunity</a>. It’s easier to think of them as full immunity and limited immunity.</p>
<p>Full immunity is just what it sounds like. When a prosecutor grants a witness full immunity for an offense, she cannot thereafter prosecute the witness for that offense. Full immunity is tantamount to a “<a href="https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/what-is-immunity">get out of jail free</a>” card.</p>
<p>Limited immunity is more complicated. When a prosecutor grants a witness limited immunity, she <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/441/">can still prosecute</a> the witness. But she can’t use the witness’s immunized testimony, or evidence that comes from it, against the witness. </p>
<h2>Why would a prosecutor give a witness immunity?</h2>
<p>Prosecutors grant immunity when they want testimony from someone who has refused. Generally, the government <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/40/">can compel testimony</a> from anyone with information about a case.</p>
<p>The catch is that witnesses have a right under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment">the Fifth Amendment</a> to refuse to answer questions that could be self-incriminating. That puts prosecutors in a bind, particularly when they want information that is in the hands – or the minds – of people who participated in the activity they are seeking to prosecute. </p>
<p>Immunity gives prosecutors a way out. If a person has immunity, then by definition their <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/441/">testimony cannot incriminate</a> them. That’s why if a witness has been granted immunity and refuses to testify, they can be <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-728-criminal-contempt">held in contempt</a> and sent to jail.</p>
<h2>What does a witness get out of immunity?</h2>
<p>It again depends on what kind of immunity we’re talking about. For a witness concerned about being charged with a crime, the benefits of full immunity are obvious. Limited immunity is less attractive to defendants, but it is often still appealing. That’s because it can be difficult for <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hampton-2">prosecutors to establish</a> that they obtained evidence independent of immunized testimony, so limited immunity still offers witnesses some protection against future prosecution.</p>
<p>There are, however, hazards to testifying under a grant of immunity. One is that immunity typically <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/495/607/2008000/">does not cover perjury</a>. So if an immunized person testifies and lies, or if the prosecutor just thinks they lied, they could be charged with a crime after all. </p>
<p>Beyond the risk of a perjury charge, testifying often means that a witness must provide information that could send a friend or ally to prison. It also means that the witness will be cross-examined by a defense lawyer, who will likely try to <a href="https://forensicresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Cross-examining-the-snitch.pdf">convince the jury</a> that the witness is lying. There is also the possibility that the defendant or his associates, or both, might retaliate against the witness <a href="https://casetext.com/case/piemonte-v-united-states-2">outside of the courthouse</a>.</p>
<h2>Is immunity negotiated between prosecutors and witnesses? How is it determined whether a witness gets full or limited immunity?</h2>
<p>The government can negotiate immunity with a witness, but it doesn’t have to. When immunity is negotiated, it looks a lot like a plea agreement, except that the potential defendant doesn’t plead guilty to a crime. Immunity deals can get complicated, but the basic terms are pretty simple: The government agrees that it will not prosecute the person, which is full immunity, or that it will not use the person’s testimony against them, which is limited immunity, while the person agrees to cooperate in some way, often by testifying.</p>
<p>That said, the government can grant immunity to compel a witness’s testimony, even if the witness objects. That makes sense when you recall that the primary function of immunity is to overcome a witness’s right to remain silent. Whether a witness receives full or limited immunity in those situations is determined by statutes and state constitutions. In the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6002">federal system</a> and <a href="https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2003/3/Clair.pdf">some states</a>, the prosecutor merely has to grant limited immunity to compel testimony. In other states, though, prosecutors can compel a person’s testimony only by granting full immunity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A gavel sits on a bare table, in front of an empty courtroom." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540820/original/file-20230802-20-tdfx92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s possible that special counsel Jack Smith granted immunity to fake electors or co-conspirators in the federal probe of former President Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/courtroom-and-gavel-royalty-free-image/876701606?phrase=court+witness+US&adppopup=true">imaginima/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Is there a difference between state and federal immunity?</h2>
<p>Some states are more generous than others, or than the federal government, in granting full rather than limited immunity. Beyond that, there are various procedural differences between state and federal immunity that can sometimes be important. But on the major points, there aren’t many glaring differences between how witness immunity works in the federal and state systems.</p>
<h2>Can granting immunity in one jurisdiction make the job of a prosecutor in another jurisdiction harder?</h2>
<p>Absolutely, and that is why federal and state prosecutors often coordinate. When a witness testifies in a state proceeding pursuant to a formal immunity grant from a state prosecutor, their testimony can’t be used against them in federal court either. In other words, the person has <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/52/">limited immunity in federal proceedings</a>. And it works the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6002">same way in reverse</a>. When a person testifies with immunity in a federal proceeding, that testimony cannot be used against them in a state prosecution. </p>
<p>That makes good sense. If a person’s testimony could be used against them at a different jurisdictional level, they would still be able to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions. It can, however, complicate matters when prosecutors at one level try to prosecute a person who received immunity at a different level. One thing that trips up prosecutors in these situations is the requirement that to prosecute someone who has been given immunity they must establish that their evidence is independent of any immunized testimony. That can get tricky.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Ortman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Immunity deals may play a key role in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.William Ortman, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2105172023-07-27T12:26:58Z2023-07-27T12:26:58ZFederal government is challenging Texas’s buoys in the Rio Grande – here’s why these kinds of border blockades wind up complicating immigration enforcement<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539616/original/file-20230726-21-pfd09i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Buoy barriers are shown in the middle of the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, on July 18, 2023. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/buoy-barriers-are-installed-and-situated-in-the-middle-of-news-photo/1554459107?adppopup=true">Brandon Bell/Getty Images </a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The Rio Grande is only about 328 feet, or about 99 meters, wide. But the waterway dividing Texas from northern Mexico is deceptively dangerous and routinely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/05/migrants-risk-death-crossing-treacherous-rio-grande-river-for-american-dream">claims the lives of migrants</a> who try to cross it, but get caught in undetected rip currents or otherwise drown.</em> </p>
<p><em>Now, it’s the site of a legal battle between the U.S. federal government and the state of Texas regarding the right to enact blockades in the river</em>. </p>
<p><em>The U.S. Justice Department announced on July 24, 2023, that it <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-state-texas-illegally-placing-floating-buoy">filed a civil lawsuit</a> against Texas for illegally placing a floating buoy barrier in a section of the Rio Grande that runs about 1,000 feet, or 304 meters, long.</em> </p>
<p><em>Texas Gov. Greg Abbott <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/21/biden-administration-warns-texas-over-floating-barriers-at-border">rejected the Justice Department’s appeal in mid-July </a> to remove the buoys, saying that they were necessary to keep migrants out of Texas.</em> </p>
<p><em>The case raises questions about federal versus state control over the border – as well as whether tactics like buoys are actually effective at deterring migrants. In some cases, they frustrate immigration enforcement efforts in other ways, according to immigration legal scholar <a href="https://gould.usc.edu/faculty/?id=72708">Jean Lantz Reisz</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s politics and society editor Amy Lieberman spoke with Reisz to better understand the significance of this conflict.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of people are seen walking through knee-deep water, in front of a long row of large orange circular buoys." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539617/original/file-20230726-23-wdarm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Migrants walk between a wire fence and a string of buoys in the Rio Grande on July 16, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/migrants-walk-between-concertina-wire-and-a-string-of-buoys-news-photo/1536221750?adppopup=true">Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who controls this section of the Rio Grande?</h2>
<p>I believe a patchwork of private owners and entities own the section of the Rio Grande where the buoys are located. And on the Mexico side it is the Mexican government – the border goes down the middle. The International Boundary Water Commission manages the Rio Grande border and is jointly run by U.S. and Mexico. </p>
<p>Typically, federal authorities regulate the border territories. All ports of entry are federal, for example. And a state like Texas cannot interfere with U.S. border enforcement. Texas could not claim that it owns this land and thus can erect whatever structures they want on it. And if it impedes the objective of the federal government of securing the border, that is unlawful. </p>
<h2>But the lawsuit’s claims are more specific than this question, right?</h2>
<p>The lawsuit alleges that Texas is violating the <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/59646">Rivers and Harbors Act,</a> which is a federal act that says if a state wants to erect any structure in navigable waters of the United States, it has to seek a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That has to do with the federal power over interstate and foreign commerce. </p>
<p>Getting a permit like this would have required an investigation of potential humanitarian and environmental consequences to the buoys. I think that, in this case, the Rio Grande is a navigable water that is on the border and the permit would have been denied. </p>
<p>The bigger picture is that a state is impeding the federal government’s jurisdiction. </p>
<h2>How could the buoys complicate federal immigration enforcement?</h2>
<p>The U.S. <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/border-security#:%7E:text=CBP%27s%20top%20priority%20is%20to,narcotics%20smuggling%20and%20illegal%20importation.">has a strategy</a> in enforcing the border that involves physical border patrol enforcement, <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/cbp-small-drones-program">drones</a>, <a href="https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/us-border-surveillance/">heat sensors</a> and so on. So when a state comes and physically blocks off a part of the border, that frustrates the entire strategy. </p>
<p>It means that certain identifiable routes where people are being apprehended are now obstructed. This creates new migration routes, so people might not cross at this particular small section of the river, but they will find another section of the river and cross there, instead. </p>
<p>And if the buoys create an unsafe situation that results in rescue operations of migrants, it adds to the cost – not on enforcing the border, but on rescuing people. </p>
<p>In addition, Mexico’s cooperation is part of U.S. border enforcement strategy, and the buoys affect agreements between U.S. and Mexico over the use of the river. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A person with a cowboy hat is seen from behind, talking on the phone as he looks at large trucks with big orange buoys lined up behind them." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539618/original/file-20230726-17-fgerr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A person surveys buoy barriers before they are installed in the Rio Grande on July 7, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/person-speaks-on-the-phone-while-surveying-the-preparation-news-photo/1523062022?adppopup=true">Brandon Bell/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How often does this kind of conflict over immigration authority happen?</h2>
<p>There have been previous legal challenges regarding Texas wanting to have control over border enforcement. Issues like state police arresting people who <a href="https://www.khou.com/article/news/special-reports/at-the-border/texas-border-force/285-54daeb32-72d9-4d72-bbfb-af906d744b9a">are in violation of immigration law</a> – those kinds of laws have been passed in states like Texas and Arizona and were found to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-law-20160915-snap-story.html">violate federal law</a>. </p>
<p>This is because the federal government enforces immigration. The states cannot also <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/States-Are-Utterly-Dependent-Feds-Secure-Border-Enforce-Immigration-Laws">enforce federal immigration law</a>. States can arrest people suspected of breaking state laws, but not federal immigration laws. </p>
<p>In the 2012 case of <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182">Arizona v. the United States,</a> for example, Arizona tried to penalize noncitizens for working without federal work authorization. The state authorized law enforcement to arrest people suspected of being in violation of immigration law. And the court found that Arizona could not do anything that is within the jurisdiction of the federal government, or obstruct the federal government’s objectives when it comes to immigration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210517/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean Lantz Reisz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Setting up buoys in a section of the Rio Grande is more likely to result in migrants seeking pathways elsewhere, rather than deterring migration altogether.Jean Lantz Reisz, Co-Director, USC Immigration Clinic and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2103352023-07-25T12:24:18Z2023-07-25T12:24:18ZDespite calls for her to recuse herself from Trump’s criminal case, Judge Aileen Cannon’s situation doesn’t meet the standard for when a judge should step away<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539074/original/file-20230724-2397-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump's classified documents trial will take place at the Alto Lee Adams Sr. United States Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-alto-lee-adams-sr-united-states-courthouse-where-u-s-news-photo/1500102456?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal trial for former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents is scheduled to start on May 20, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon announced on July 21, 2023. </p>
<p>This trial date should be entered into calendars with a pencil, <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.83.0.pdf">because Cannon’s order</a> leaves open the possibility that the trial could be delayed. Reasons for such a delay could involve either the defense or prosecution <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4109822-trump-classified-documents-trial-date-set-for-may-2024/#:%7E:text=Trump's%20trial%20is%20set%20for,various%20motions%20in%20the%20case">filing various requests</a> that draw the process out. </p>
<p>Federal prosecutors wanted the trial to begin <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/21/judge-sets-trump-classified-documents-trial-for-next-may-00107566">as early as December 2023</a>. Trump’s <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/trump-criminal-case-judge-hears-bid-to-delay-trial.html">legal team had pushed</a> to delay his trial until after the election. Cannon took a middle ground by setting the May 2024 trial date. The trial is scheduled to happen after most of the Republican primaries are held, but before the November 2024 presidential election. </p>
<p>Critics have scrutinized Cannon, whom Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-judge.html">appointed to the bench</a> in 2020, questioning whether her previous rulings and nature of her appointment indicate bias in favor of Trump. These observers <a href="https://www.salon.com/2023/07/24/experts-raise-concerns-about-cannons-trial-date--but-master-chess-player-jack-smith-has-a-plan/">called for Cannon to remove herself</a> from the Justice Department’s case against Trump. </p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/21/judge-sets-trump-classified-documents-trial-for-next-may-00107566">scholar of legal ethics and trials</a>. The fact that Trump appointed Cannon to the bench is not a good enough reason for her to recuse herself from the case. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large sign spells the words 'President Trump Fort Pierce welcomes you'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539069/original/file-20230724-25-d36td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A restaurant welcomes former President Donald Trump to Fort Piece, Fla., where Trump’s federal trial will take place.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/restaurant-welcomes-former-president-donald-trump-to-fort-news-photo/1553877537?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A shadow over the trial</h2>
<p>Trump has <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-indictment-miami-court-e9412bb71b63ab1b7cfb8e8b122e9809">pleaded not guilty</a> to 37 felony counts related to the mishandling of national security information and obstruction of justice. This case was randomly assigned to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-judge.html">Cannon in June 2023</a>, not because anyone personally selected her for the job. </p>
<p>Some argue that Trump’s appointment of Cannon – and <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/was-mar-lago-judge-aileen-cannon-wearing-team-trump-hat-1805906">a ruling Cannon made in Trump’s favor</a> in earlier stages of the case – are reasons to remove her from the case. Legal experts have said that her previous rulings “<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/trump-indictment-remove-judge-aileen-cannon.html">cast a shadow</a> over the proceedings,” especially since they fall “well outside of the judicial norm.”</p>
<p>In an earlier ruling, Cannon stopped the FBI in September 2022 from <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1120885510/doj-trump-special-master-judge">reviewing documents seized from Mar-a-Lago</a> until after a special master, whom she appointed, reviewed them. This was a very unusual decision, and the court of appeals quickly <a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/12/12/humiliation-for-cannon-reverses-pro-order-after-getting-slapped-down-by/#:%7E:text=The%2011th%20Circuit%20Court%20of,than%20any%20other%20investigation%20target.">reversed her order</a>, finding that Cannon exceeded her authority.</p>
<p>Still, federal law states that mandatory recusal, or disqualification of a judge, is required only under limited circumstances in which “the judge’s impartiality <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455">might reasonably be questioned</a>.” Impartiality is required so that every person will receive a fair trial, free from bias.</p>
<p>Judges have stepped away from cases in circumstances in which they had personal knowledge of disputed facts or had a potential financial interest in the matter. For example, Mark Walker, the federal judge in Florida originally assigned to Disney’s case against Gov. Ron DeSantis, recused himself in June 2023 when he learned that a <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/article_5c576dca-016e-11ee-ae7b-abb26420d2a9.html">relative owned stock in Disney</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A photo illustration shows a black and white photo of office boxes, next to a paper that has the signature and name of Jack Smith, special counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539080/original/file-20230724-21-o3zr9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The unsealed federal indictment of former President Donald Trump details how he mishandled classified documents and took them from the White House to his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-pages-are-viewed-from-the-news-photo/1258567529?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Little outside interference</h2>
<p>Federal judges generally decide for themselves whether to step down from a case or not. </p>
<p>Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, did not take part in cases <a href="https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-elections-donald-trump-clarence-thomas-f3adf2919f789fcd03b9da6271a62501">decided in the lower court </a> by his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. </p>
<p>Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself in 2022 from a case in which the Supreme Court gave a <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/1002149828/supreme-court-johnson-johnson-talc-verdict-ovarian-cancer">US$2 billion verdict</a> in favor of women who claimed they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson talc products. Kavanaugh’s father had headed a trade association that lobbied against <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/justices-decide-for-themselves-when-to-step-aside-from-cases/6502527.html">warning labels on talc products</a>.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://fixthecourt.com/2023/07/recent-times-justice-failed-recuse-despite-clear-conflict-interest/">also many cases of judges not recusing</a> themselves despite calls to do so. </p>
<p>If either the defense or prosecution does not think that a particular <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144">judge can be fair</a>, they can file a motion before the trial begins to have the judge disqualified. The judge in question usually decides the motion, and, if the judge does not voluntarily step down, the petitioner may appeal the decision to the court of appeals. The court of appeals <a href="https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=nulr">rarely second-guesses</a> the trial judge’s decision to stay on a case over a party’s objection.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210335/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter A. Joy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump appointed Cannon to the bench, but that alone is not a good enough reason for her to recuse herself from the case.Peter A. Joy, Professor of law, Washington University in St LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2100322023-07-18T20:08:23Z2023-07-18T20:08:23ZWhat is a target letter? 3 things to know about how the Justice Department notifies suspects, like Donald Trump, ahead of possible charges<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538094/original/file-20230718-33186-qoqowz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump appears in July 2023 at a re-election campaign event in Florida. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1534455414/photo/us-vote-politics-trump.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=3ykyCSxAZ3nd52wzkgMq4ZX6RXfqJb5AxuAsVYyLZxc=">Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Former President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/18/trump-letter-response-j6/">posted on Truth Social</a> on July 18, 2023, that he had received <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/18/1188280401/trump-jan-6-letter">a letter from the Department of Justice,</a> notifying him that that he was “a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation.”</em></p>
<p><em>He also wrote that the letter said he has “a very short 4 days to report to the Grand Jury, which almost always means an Arrest and Indictment.”</em></p>
<p><em>It’s the second letter from the Justice Department that Trump has reportedly received in the last few months. The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/politics/trump-justice-department-classified-documents/index.html">first preceded</a> the department <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-charged-under-espionage-act-which-covers-a-lot-more-crimes-than-just-spying-207373">charging Trump in June 2023</a> with mishandling classified documents, obstructing justice and making false statements.</em></p>
<p><em>The Justice Department is investigating Trump for his alleged involvement in orchestrating the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-final-report">Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a> on the U.S. Capitol building.</em> </p>
<p><em>Target letters are often used to be fair to someone who is likely to be charged with a crime. Criminal law scholar <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DMWfDCgAAAAJ&hl=en">Gabriel J. Chin</a> explains three key things to know about these letters.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large photo of Donald Trump is shown on a projector screen, above a row of people seated at podium with American flags behind them." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538096/original/file-20230718-33186-2q15vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An image of Donald Trump is displayed during a House Committee meeting investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1245732247/photo/house-select-committee-to-investigate-the-january-6th-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol-holds-final.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=-NC0LX0gGGlSwSNRq9Jz8XCigcifNBjwO0yKVb_1q6M=">Jim Lo Scalzo/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. Target letters are warnings</h2>
<p>The Department of Justice’s general practice is to warn people being investigated for complex crimes that they are about to be charged with crimes. This is done through an official correspondence known as a “<a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-160-sample-target-letter">target letter</a>.” </p>
<p>There are two types of target letters:</p>
<p>The first is a document issued by federal prosecutors to a person who has been <a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.151">subpoenaed to testify</a> before a grand jury as a witness and who is likely to be charged with a crime related to that testimony. The second is issued when a person has not been subpoenaed as a witness but is <a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.153">nevertheless likely to be indicted</a> by a grand jury. In such cases, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging">Justice Department policy</a> is to notify the person of an impending indictment.</p>
<p>It is not clear which type of letter Trump received, but it is reasonable to speculate that it is the latter. </p>
<p>The grand jury called by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump-indictment.html">Special Prosecutor Jack Smith</a> is not known to have subpoenaed Trump in this investigation of the Capitol attack. The Justice Department is unlikely to have subpoenaed Trump to testify, given that he is unlikely to waive his privilege against self-incrimination. </p>
<p>Target letters also give the potential defendant an opportunity to decide how to respond. If the target does not have legal counsel, the letter gives them a strong indication that they should get a lawyer. Since target letters come before someone is charged with a crime, the person would not normally have the constitutional right to be appointed counsel at this time. </p>
<h2>2. Target letters can help the prosecution</h2>
<p>Target letters can serve the prosecution’s interests. They can help ensure that any testimony given to the grand jury will later be admissible or able to be used in court.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has never expressly decided whether grand jury witnesses are entitled to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning">Miranda-like warnings</a>, meaning a person should be informed of their rights to remain silent or consult with an attorney before they speak or during their testimony. However, <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/237373/united-states-v-patrick-j-scully/">since at least the 1950s</a>, lower courts have indicated that the better practice is to warn witnesses and targets that testifying before a grand jury creates legal risks.</p>
<p>Prosecutors want to avoid unnecessary litigation, as well as the appearance that they are possibly taking advantage of witnesses. So the Justice Department uses target letters as an opportunity to advise witnesses that they have the right to obtain counsel, to decline to answer incriminating questions and that any testimony may later be used against them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large crowd of people stand outside the U.S. Capitol building and hold signs that say Trump and American flags." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538107/original/file-20230718-26254-wf9glg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rioters stand outside the U.S. Capitol following a rally with then-president Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1230454607/photo/trump-supporters-hold-stop-the-steal-rally-in-dc-amid-ratification-of-presidential-election.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=jaXHq1TUzkPBnY3uCVlx1-27LprO_kr1dkvojbGUKkQ=">Samuel Corum/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Target letters can be useful, but are not necessary</h2>
<p>The Supreme Court has held that the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/181/">Constitution does not require</a> that an individual who is properly warned of their privilege against self-incrimination also be told that they are a target of the grand jury’s investigation. But Justice Department policy requires that target letters be issued in every case where a target is subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. </p>
<p>The Justice Department has decided to give Trump this additional warning anyway. Advising an individual that they are a target might induce cooperation, and it promotes the appearance of fairness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210032/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriel J. Chin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Justice Department issues target letters to people who are about to be charged with crimes, giving them a warning and a chance to get legal counsel.Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of criminal law, immigration and race and law, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2079702023-07-14T12:47:28Z2023-07-14T12:47:28ZWhy Trump’s prosecution for keeping secret documents is lawful, constitutional, precedented, nonpartisan and merited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537108/original/file-20230712-19-nac50i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C7%2C4861%2C3233&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to reporters on June 9, 2023, in Washington about the investigation of Trump's retention of classified records.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpClassifiedDocuments/b427a9a0bd424a6dbac9b8ea0ce105a7/photo?Query=Jack%20Smith&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=1957&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump and his allies have responded with a variety of objections <a href="https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf">to his federal indictment</a>, brought in June 2023 by <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith/speech/special-counsel-jack-smith-delivers-statement">special counsel Jack Smith</a>. The federal charges – the first against a former president – listed 37 counts of obstruction of justice and wrongful retention of classified documents after Trump left office in January 2021. </p>
<p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-indictment-miami-court-e9412bb71b63ab1b7cfb8e8b122e9809">Trump pleaded not guilty</a>.</p>
<p>The objections made by Trump and his allies: The former president simply cannot be charged, the indictment is political “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/25/trump-rails-against-federal-charges-and-accuses-biden-of-weaponizing-justice-department">weaponization</a>” of the justice system, the charges are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65868294">groundless</a> and the <a href="https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2023/06/12/rep-carlos-gimenez-says-trump-is-being-targeted-unfairly-in-federal-case/">charges are unfair</a>. The unfairness claim often involves <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-classified-documents/index.html">a comparison to Hillary Clinton</a>, Trump’s 2016 presidential opponent, who was not charged in an investigation into her handling of government documents.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2687223">scholar of secrecy law</a> and a <a href="https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/dakota-s-rudesill">longtime national security practitioner</a>, based on all that is known, I do not see merit in those claims. </p>
<h2>A former president can be charged</h2>
<p>Trump and his allies have argued that it is completely inappropriate for the former president to be charged.</p>
<p>But no part of the Constitution, no statute and no Supreme Court precedent sets a former chief executive above the law. Alexander Hamilton, writing in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp">The Federalist Papers</a>, stated the founders’ view that a former president is “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Hamilton added that a former president would be no different in this respect from a state governor. </p>
<p>American history is replete with criminal charges against <a href="https://www.illinoispolicy.org/4-of-illinois-past-10-governors-went-to-prison/">state officials</a>, vice presidents – a <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-great-trial-that-tested-the-constitutions-treason-clause">former one</a> during the founding era, and a <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/vice-president-agnew-resigns">sitting one</a> in the 1970s – <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/congressman-george-santos-charged-fraud-money-laundering-theft-public-funds-and-false">members of Congress</a> and <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/former-ohio-house-speaker-sentenced-20-years-prison-leading-racketeering-conspiracy">other prominent politicians</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cardboard boxes piled up in a bathroom." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537116/original/file-20230712-23-wtdmyh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Trump federal indictment includes this photo of boxes of records stored in a bathroom and shower at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/APTOPIXTrumpClassifiedDocuments/2d076c18d4c6444987df88fcf14ea542/photo?Query=Trump%20mar%20a%20lago%20documents%20bathroom&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=1&currentItemNo=0">Justice Department via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not a partisan prosecution</h2>
<p>Trump is right that his is <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1186926582/trump-asks-the-judge-to-delay-the-start-of-his-classified-documents-trial">inevitably a sensitive case</a> because of his continued presence in the political arena. </p>
<p>What he does not acknowledge is that maintaining the bedrock legal principle of equal justice requires avoiding twin hazards: politically motivated prosecutions and exempting elite politicians from the law. </p>
<p>Navigating these shoals is challenging because under the U.S. Constitution, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/">the executive branch</a> is headed by the sitting president, and it includes the Justice Department. That means there will always be at least a potential risk of “weaponization” of prosecution – or just the risk of that allegation – when the defendant is in a different party from the president.</p>
<p>But if a former president who is a political adversary of the current president cannot be charged, then that former president can commit any federal crime they please. That is the opposite of the founders’ intent, and not the law.</p>
<p>Sorting this out requires careful analysis of the facts and law. </p>
<p>Here, the “weaponization” allegation <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/us/weaponization-committee-house-republicans.html">lacks substance</a>. All it has are the circumstances of President Joe Biden’s position atop the executive branch, and Trump’s challenge to Biden’s candidacy. In contrast to President Thomas Jefferson’s <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-great-trial-that-tested-the-constitutions-treason-clause">detailed direction of the prosecution</a> of political adversary and former Vice President Aaron Burr, there is no credible evidence that Biden is telling the prosecutor what to do.</p>
<h2>The charges have merit</h2>
<p>Trump claims that he had an “<a href="https://news.yahoo.com/trump-crowns-presidents-absolute-docs-044612947.html">absolute right</a>” to take the documents. In reality, when Trump left office <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117297065/trump-documents-history-national-archives-law-watergate">he lost the presidency’s authority</a> to possess presidential records and national security documents. The indictment presents strong evidence that the documents Trump held on to contained <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/86887/national-security-implications-of-trumps-indictment-a-damage-assessment/">extremely sensitive secrets</a>, including U.S. war plans, and that Trump knew it and worked to block recovery of all of them by the government.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html">By law</a>, documents of former presidents and national defense information must be stored by the National Archives or other federal agencies. Instead, the indictment alleges that the former president stored classified information at the busy Mar-a-Lago resort in a room accessible from the pool, an office, ballroom stage, bathroom and shower. </p>
<p><a href="https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf">The indictment</a> lays out clear evidence of Trump’s knowing refusal over many months to comply fully with lawful requests, and a subsequent court-issued subpoena, for the return of all the documents. It includes pictures, and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-trump-audio-recording-classified-documents-case-3f3963a35a5d8ccae407ea4ab9f93082">a recorded statement</a> in which Trump checks all the boxes for criminal liability: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793">knowing possession</a> after leaving office of documents he calls “secret” and showing of those documents to people not authorized to see them – plus admitting that he could have declassified them while president but did not. </p>
<h2>Not comparable to Biden, Pence or Clinton</h2>
<p>That recording and other contents of the indictment will be powerful evidence at trial of Trump’s state of mind. </p>
<p>The law concerning <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519">government documents</a> and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793">national defense information</a> requires willfulness for criminal liability – basically, keeping documents you know you should not. Other statutes criminalize <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001">lying to investigators</a>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512">other obstruction of justice</a> and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2">getting others to commit crimes</a>. </p>
<p>It is Trump’s alleged knowingness and obstruction that make complaints of unfairness fall flat. </p>
<p>President Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/15/trump-documents-case-biden-clinton-pence.html">both instructed aides to return documents</a> with classification markings after such records were discovered in files that had been quickly packed and went home with the former vice presidents at the end of their terms as veep. </p>
<p>A federal investigation of Pence <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/justice-department-wont-bring-charges-over-classified-documents-found-at-pences-home">was dropped in June 2023</a>. One of Biden likely will be, too. Both former vice presidents wrongfully retained national defense information, but not knowingly. Neither was obstructive. </p>
<p>In Trump’s 2016 campaign, he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/23/trump-falsely-compares-hillary-clintons-emails-his-document-hoard/">criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton</a> for her use of private email systems, including to send emails with classified information. The FBI concluded that she had been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/careless-but-not-criminal-what-the-fbi-has-said-about-hillary-clintons-emails/">extremely careless rather than knowing or obstructing</a>. </p>
<h2>Echoes of Reality Winner and Edward Snowden</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A blond-haired woman in an orange shirt with 'INMATE' printed on it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537124/original/file-20230712-19-bkba5u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reality Winner, who leaked a classified report to a reporter, was sentenced to five years in prison for violating one of the same Espionage Act provisions under which Trump has been charged.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/RussiaHackingAccusedLeaker/8e5d698c1f864098a517f29adfc73365/photo?Query=%22Reality%20Winner%22&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:asc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=9&currentItemNo=0">Lincoln County, Georgia Sheriff's Office via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The evidence of Trump’s knowing retention of secret documents and obstruction makes his case quite like many in which people have faced fines or prison. Those include cases in which people once had lawful access to secrets but knowingly stole and shared them to make political points. </p>
<p>A junior Air Force linguist, Reality Winner, unlawfully removed one top-secret document and sent it to the media because she thought the public should know about it. Winner was <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news">prosecuted during Trump’s presidency</a> and sentenced to five years in prison. The law in question? One of the same <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793">Espionage Act</a> provisions under which Trump has been charged with over 30 counts. </p>
<p>Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who in 2013 leaked tens of thousands of classified documents to inform the public about secret U.S. surveillance activities, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html">was also charged</a> under another very similar section of the same statute before fleeing to Russia. </p>
<p>Trump’s case also looks a lot like those of other senior officials who have been prosecuted for knowingly mishandling secret documents, plus lying and other obstruction. </p>
<p>The indictment alleges that Trump, after leaving office, showed classified information to a biographer. That recalls <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/petraeus-plea-deal-over-giving-classified-data-to-lover.html">then-CIA Director David Petraeus’ giving his biographer</a> – who was also his lover – top-secret papers. </p>
<p>Both Trump and Petraeus were charged under the same <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793">Espionage Act</a> sections and the same law criminalizing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001">lying to investigators</a>. After being fired as CIA director, <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170307_R41404_81a5dd34df4194e25f492f9ac3a7ee0ab5a41eb3.html">Petraeus pleaded guilty</a> to a lesser charge, paid a fine and got two years’ probation. </p>
<p>Trump’s situation strikes me as worse than Petraeus’. Trump’s documents are more numerous. Prosecutors allege that Trump’s were viewed by more people and were stored less securely. Trump’s obstruction also appears far greater. </p>
<p>A final category of cases also suggests Trump is in big trouble: the prosecutions of hoarders. There are multiple instances of U.S. intelligence personnel having been indicted, like Trump, for keeping troves of secret documents at home. Their mental health defenses failed. During Trump’s presidency, sentences in these cases included <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-nsa-employee-sentenced-prison-willful-retention-classified-national-defense#:%7E:text=Nghia%20Hoang%20Pho%2C%2068%2C%20of,of%20classified%20national%20defense%20information.">five years</a> and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/743345689/ex-nsa-contractor-who-stole-top-secret-documents-sentenced-to-9-years-in-prison">nine years in prison</a>. </p>
<p>Despite all of that, Trump and his allies will likely argue that indictment of a former president violates an important tradition against such prosecutions.</p>
<p>The real tradition is that former presidents tend not to break the law. The considerable evidence of the former president’s hoarding of secret documents and obstruction have forced the justice system either to exempt an elite politician from the law – or proceed with the well-merited prosecution that is now underway.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The author has worked inside the U.S. intelligence community and extensively handled classified information. Almost 30 years ago, he ran for the state legislature as a Democrat, and from 1995 to 2003 worked for a Democratic U.S. Senator. Over the years he has volunteered for, contributed money to, and voted for Democratic, Republican, and Independent candidates for public office. His scholarship and teaching are non-partisan and focus on civic values, law, and professionalism. </span></em></p>A former national security staffer, now a scholar of secrecy law, says criticisms of Trump’s federal indictment for hoarding classified documents are unfounded.Dakota Rudesill, Associate Professor of Law; Senior Faculty Fellow, Mershon Center for International Security Studies, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2078922023-06-21T12:29:06Z2023-06-21T12:29:06ZTrump’s trial will soon be underway in Florida – here’s why prosecutors had little choice in selecting any other courthouse location<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532970/original/file-20230620-15-scpnfz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Police walk around the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. federal courthouse in Miami before Donald Trump's arraignment on June 12, 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1497975541/photo/miami-readies-for-former-president-trumps-arraignment-in-federal-court.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=z25KKlBei902cacVnqqAL953bYjin6uv7iOk9gdm_9U=">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Special Counsel Jack Smith may have wished he could indict and try former president Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., <a href="https://stacker.com/politics/states-highest-and-lowest-trump-approval-ratings">where Trump is disliked,</a> rather than in southern Florida, where <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/trump-approval-rating-by-state">Trump is popular.</a> </p>
<p>But based on my experience as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DMWfDCgAAAAJ&hl=en">a scholar of criminal law and procedure,</a> as well as my time practicing criminal law, I believe that under the Constitution – and under the circumstances – Smith had little choice but to prosecute Trump in Florida. </p>
<p>The federal prosecution of Trump for retaining and concealing government documents is specifically pending in the Southern District of Florida, where Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s estate and golf club, is located.</p>
<p>Aileen M. Cannon, the federal judge presiding over the case, announced on June 20, 2023, that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/politics/trump-classified-documents-trial-date.html">trial could begin</a> as soon as Aug. 14. </p>
<p>The Constitution requires <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-2/">that a trial must be “held</a> in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed” and that a defendant is entitled to an “impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” </p>
<p>This means that the so-called “venue” for a federal prosecution is <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/court-website-links#districtbankruptcy">the district</a> where the alleged crime was committed. </p>
<p>Congress is responsible for drawing district lines in states. In some states, like Massachusetts and North Dakota, the borders of the district are identical to the borders of the state. Other states have more than one federal judicial district; Florida has three. Accordingly, U.S. district judges in Florida hear cases only from part of the state. </p>
<p>It is important for the prosecution to choose the proper venue. When a defendant objects to the venue, a judge may dismiss the case. And if the jury finds that a crime was not actually committed in the district, they are instructed to render a “not guilty” verdict, ending the case permanently.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Former President Donald Trump is seen behind a glass window with two thumbs up. The photo is dark, showing the interior of a car." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532968/original/file-20230620-19-d3forp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump gives a thumbs-up as he leaves the federal courthouse in Miami following his June 2023 arraignment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1498241989/photo/former-president-trump-is-arraigned-on-federal-espionage-charges.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=XeVC3r9cLzvvFVX0w1oGaWMkdlvL5psMNbWGvsZJhAU=">Scott Olson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Across state lines</h2>
<p>There are a few issues that complicate the constitutional mandate that a crime should be prosecuted where it was allegedly committed. </p>
<p>One is that a crime may be committed in more than one district.</p>
<p>Methamphetamine may be made in Arizona and sold in New Mexico, for example. A fraud victim may be deceived in Alabama, but yet wire their money to Mississippi. The law does not insist that there is one and only one permissible venue for a federal prosecution.</p>
<p>Instead, the U.S. Code <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3237">says that a federal offense</a> “may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.” </p>
<p>Prosecutors are alleging that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-classified-documents-investigation-timeline-rcna88620">Trump’s criminal activity took place</a> in both Florida and Washington. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/09/indictment-document-trump-classified-documents-pdf/">federal indictment charges Trump</a> with unlawful retention of national defense information, beginning on Jan. 20, 2021. This date was Trump’s last day in office as president, and at which time he was in Washington. </p>
<p>Although Trump, his staff and his boxes of documents later relocated to the Southern District of Florida, this is a classic allegation of a crime which was “begun” in one district even if it “continued” in another. </p>
<p>So, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia could have been the place to charge Trump with most of these felony charges. </p>
<h2>Other charges</h2>
<p>However, Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/politics/walt-nauta-trump-documents.html">also charged with conspiracy</a>, false statements and other offenses related to hiding their allegedly unlawful retention of government documents. </p>
<p>The government alleges that these offenses began “on or about May 11, 2022.” </p>
<p>From the indictment, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/09/indictment-document-trump-classified-documents-pdf/">it appears that Trump, Nauta and the documents</a> were at Mar-a-Lago around this time. </p>
<p>Trump, through his lawyers, also <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-trump-indictment-on-mishandling-of-classified-documents">allegedly gave false statements</a> to government investigators in Florida. </p>
<p>So, for the felony counts that address these particular crimes – as specified in Counts 32 through 38 – the Southern District of Florida appears to be the only proper venue. </p>
<p>Perhaps prosecutors could have made the argument that there was some connection to the District of Columbia and that they should place Trump on trial there.</p>
<p>It may well be, for example, that some of Trump’s lawyers – several are mentioned, but not named, in the indictment – were located, made calls or sent emails to government officials in the District of Columbia as part of the alleged criminal activity.</p>
<p>But if the Justice Department brought Counts 32 through 38 in the District of Columbia, the trial judge might have granted a defense motion to dismiss based on lack of venue, among other potential challenges.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of people crowd together outside of a building with palm trees and one holds a black t shirt with a picture of a man in a suit that says 'not guilty.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532975/original/file-20230620-19-ej2z7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Donald Trump supporters gather outside the federal courthouse in Miami where he was arraigned.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1258664368/photo/topshot-us-justice-politics-trump.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=wdQsgJOyxKO0MyCml03uVf6iEysYwHniOwGrjx68brs=">Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Forum shopping</h2>
<p>The Department of Justice could have alternatively brought Counts 1 through 31 in the District of Columbia and then pursued the other felonies in Florida.</p>
<p>However, I believe that would have looked like brazen <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forum_shopping#:%7E:text=Forum%20shopping%20refers%20to%20the,between%20courts%20in%20separate%20countries">forum shopping</a>, meaning trying to secure a court that would likely be friendly to the prosecution. It is unusual for the Department of Justice to divide criminal charges that way, and forum shopping is generally discouraged. </p>
<p>Someone retaining national defense-related documents has committed no crime if it was accidental or mistaken. It violates the law only if it was “willful.” </p>
<p>So, all of the felony charges in Trump’s case are connected. </p>
<p>In order to show that Trump wrongfully retained the documents, the government will want to show the jury that Trump and his allies lied and intentionally concealed the items. Accordingly, it makes sense for all of the counts to be tried together.</p>
<p>Trump has pleaded not guilty to the alleged crimes, and the judge probably would agree with prosecutors that the trial should be taking place in Florida. Bringing the charges in any other district might well have delayed or even destroyed the case. And I believe that a potential conviction in the Southern District of Florida would have more public credibility because of Trump’s popularity there.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriel J. Chin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Constitution says that a trial must be held where an alleged crime happened – while Trump’s indictment mentions Washington, D.C. and Florida, there are a few reasons why Florida was the pick.Gabriel J. Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair & Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074822023-06-12T11:49:48Z2023-06-12T11:49:48Z‘If you want to die in jail, keep talking’ – two national security law experts discuss the special treatment for Trump and offer him some advice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531249/original/file-20230611-23-dl1h4f.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2953%2C1921&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump on his airplane on June 10, 2023, two days after his federal indictment.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-president-donald-trump-speaks-to-staff-and-reporters-news-photo/1258608437?adppopup=true">Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Lawyer Thomas A. Durkin has spent much of his career working in <a href="https://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facultyandadministrationprofiles/durkin-thomas.shtml">national security law</a>, representing clients in a variety of national security and domestic terrorism matters. <a href="https://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facultyandadministrationprofiles/ferguson-joseph.shtml">Joseph Ferguson</a> was a national security prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, where Durkin was also a prosecutor. Both teach national security law at Loyola University, Chicago. The Conversation U.S.’s democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with the two attorneys about <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23839628-trump-indictment">the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump</a> on Espionage Act and other charges related to his retention of national security-related classified documents.</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-repeat-trumps-claim-doj-weaponization-after-2nd/story?id=99963397">The word “weaponized”</a> has been <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-magnifies-attacks-justice-department-post-charges-speech-2023-06-10/">used by Trump</a>, his supporters and even his GOP rivals to describe the Department of Justice. Do you see the Trump prosecution as different in any notable way from other Espionage Act prosecutions that you’ve worked on or observed?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: Obviously, it’s different because of who the defendant is. But I see it in kind of an opposite way: If Trump were anyone other than a former president, he would not have been given the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/reality-winner-nsa-sentence.html">luxury of a summons to appear in court</a>. There would be a team of armed FBI agents outside his door at 6:30 in the morning, he would have been arrested and the government would be immediately moving to detain. So the idea that he’s being treated differently is true – but not from the way his supporters seem to be arguing. </p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: What you have is a method, manner and means of pursuing this matter and bringing it forward to indictment that actually completely comports with the deepest traditions and standards of the Department of Justice, which would normally consider all contexts and the best interests of society. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A dark haired man with a bear approaching a lectern." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531252/original/file-20230611-150540-ts7ejl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Special Counsel Jack Smith briefly discussed the Trump indictment on June 9, 2023, in Washington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/special-counsel-jack-smith-makes-a-statement-from-the-news-photo/1258577211?adppopup=true">Tom Brenner for The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>If Trump were your client, what would you advise him to do?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: The first thing I would do is show him a guidelines memo, which we typically create for every client to help them understand the potential consequences of the charges. Under the <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/qa-on-trumps-federal-indictment/">U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the consequences for Trump under this indictment are serious</a>. My quick calculations indicate that you’re talking about 51 to 63 months in the best case and in the worst case, which I’m not sure would apply, 210 to 262 months. </p>
<p>Whether he wants to roll heavy dice, that’s up to him. But those are very heavy dice. </p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: I might pull media statements that he has made in the last couple years and explain to him how they have complicated the ability to defend him. I’d put on the table to him that I need to see every statement that he is going to make in the political realm about this before he makes it. I’d tell him he’s otherwise basically hanging himself. </p>
<p>I’d tell him: If you want to die in jail, keep talking. But if you want to try to figure out a way that brings about an acceptable resolution - a plea deal that opens the door to a lighter jail sentence than what the guidelines threaten and, possibly, even no jail time – you need to turn it down or at least have it screened by your lawyers. </p>
<p><strong>Are there specific things he might say between now and a trial that could deepen his trouble?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: No question about that. And people should understand that the things that he said already are being used as <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23839628-trump-indictment">evidence of intent</a>. From now on, the repetition of them constitutes new admissible evidence. It’s not like, “Oh, I’ve already said it, so I might as well keep saying it.” </p>
<p>That does not mean that he cannot offer the broad brush characterization, “I’m being wronged. This is the weaponization of law enforcement and the justice system against me, and I will be vindicated,” however imprudent I might think that was. But anything that goes beyond that, and into the actual particulars, referencing the documents themselves, will just make it worse. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A pile of pages from an indictment." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531253/original/file-20230611-25-wqcduw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pages from the unsealed federal indictment of former President Donald Trump on 37 felony counts in the classified documents probe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-pages-are-viewed-from-the-news-photo/1258567425?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>The Trump indictment provides <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/09/trump-indictment-takeaways-00101376">extensive details</a> of what was said and done. Do you take those as true, or as allegations that need to be proved?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: Both. They are technically the allegations that need to be proven, but when you’re speaking at that level of granularity, these are things that actually exist in proof, the proof that is to come. </p>
<p>The government basically raises the bar when it provides this form of granularity. The federal government is a risk-averse enterprise when it comes to these matters, so nothing is put in the indictment unless it exists in actual fact.</p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: If you’re defending someone, you treat the allegations as true.</p>
<p><strong>Can you imagine a situation with all of the facts laid out in this indictment but where they would not indict?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: No.</p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: That’s why we both say that in fundamental respects, this isn’t different from other national security cases. These cases work from the premise that this is a fundamental compromising of the interests of the United States. And those are the cases that the government pursues tooth and nail. With so much in the public domain, and with so much of the defendant himself speaking to all of this, it almost puts the government in a position of saying, “Well, OK, if we have to, here we go.”</p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: There’s only one reason the government could not bring this case, and that’s fear of violence or an attack on the republic. Once you do that, then you might as well close the Department of Justice and forget about any rule of law. </p>
<p><strong>Trump knows a lot of state secrets. An angry Trump in prison has risks. If he were found guilty, what does incarceration look like for him?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: I can tell you what it would mean to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-espionage-act-what-might-it-mean-donald-trump-2023-06-11/">anyone else</a>. They’d be put in a hole in the wall in <a href="https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/">maximum security at Florence, Colorado</a>, and they would apply what’s called “<a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-24000-requests-special-confinement-conditions">Special Administrative Measures</a>.” Several of my terrorism clients have had those imposed on them. There’s a microphone outside their solitary confinement to monitor anything that they say, even between prisoners. Their mail is extremely limited. Their telephone contact is extremely limited. And that’s what would happen to anyone else similarly situated. </p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: Trump’s insistence on keeping talking about this creates a record that would justify isolation in maximum security on the basis that “We can’t trust this man not to continue to talk. We can’t trust him not to further share these secrets with people who may wish to do harm with them. The only way to avoid that is to put him in isolation in supermax where he doesn’t get to talk with people, except under these extremely closely monitored circumstances, certainly isn’t in a general population situation, gets to take a walk in a courtyard for one hour out of the 24 hours of the day, and the other 23 hours, leaving him mostly without human contact.”</p>
<p><strong>Is there a specific line he could cross that would force the government to seek to detain him prior to trial?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Durkin</strong>: I predict that if he keeps it up, and especially if he keeps suggesting or threatening violence, that the government will be put in a position where they don’t have a choice but to try to move to detain him. In the real world, that’s what would happen if it was anybody but him. Normally, you can’t be threatening this type of stuff without being put in detention. </p>
<p><strong>Ferguson</strong>: The smart play here would be for a judge to put him under a gag order that instructs him on what he may and may not say publicly. That’s already been done by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/05/23/1177644144/trump-stormy-daniels-judge-new-york-hush-money-case-carroll">a New York judge in the other pending criminal case</a> against Trump. This would be a complicated exercise in balancing First Amendment rights with national security interests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207482/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you were Trump’s lawyer, what would you advise him to do now? Two national security specialists have some words for and about the former president after his federal indictment.Thomas A. Durkin, Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Loyola University ChicagoJoseph Ferguson, Co-Director, National Security and Civil Rights Program, Loyola University ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074692023-06-09T21:49:05Z2023-06-09T21:49:05ZTrump indictment unsealed – a criminal law scholar explains what the charges mean, and what prosecutors will now need to prove<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531187/original/file-20230609-22779-bmu929.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=92%2C116%2C3999%2C2687&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Special counsel Jack Smith prepares to talk to reporters on June 9, 2023, after the indictment of former President Donald Trump. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/special-counsel-jack-smith-arrives-to-deliver-remarks-on-a-news-photo/1497248799?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Federal prosecutors on June 9, 2023, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23839628-trump-indictment">unsealed the indictment</a> that spells out the government’s case against former President Donald J. Trump, who is accused of violating national security laws and obstructing justice.</em></p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23839628-trump-indictment">49-page document</a> details how Trump kept classified government documents – including papers concerning U.S. nuclear capabilities – scattered in boxes across his home at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, long after his presidency ended in 2021 and the government tried to reclaim them.</em> </p>
<p><em>The indictment also shows that Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/09/us/trump-indictment-documents-news?name=styln-trump-raid&region=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=undefined">shared classified national defense information</a> with people without any security clearance, including someone on a political action committee.</em> </p>
<p><em>There are 38 felony charges against Trump – 31 of these counts relate to withholding national defense information. Five counts relate to concealing possession of classified documents, and two relate to giving false statements.</em></p>
<p><em>“My office will seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused,” said U.S. special prosecutor Jack Smith, who was appointed to oversee the investigation into Trump’s holding of the documents.</em> </p>
<p><em>The Conversation spoke to <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DMWfDCgAAAAJ&hl=en">criminal law scholar Gabriel J. Chin</a> at the University of California, Davis School of Law about the most important takeaways from the unsealed indictment – and the new, open questions it presents about Trump’s alleged criminal activity.</em> </p>
<p><strong>What is the significance of the Justice Department’s unsealing the indictment on June 9, ahead of Trump’s turning himself in to authorities?</strong> </p>
<p>In the federal system, indictments are not automatically sealed, and so either the U.S. special counsel did not request it to be sealed or a judge refused to seal it. I suspect it is more likely the former. This is not a case in which there are active components of the investigation still going on. The case was ready to go and there is no difference, from the government’s point of view, in disclosing the indictment today or not, because the case is in the can. </p>
<p><strong>What stands out about the indictment?</strong></p>
<p>One thing that really stood out was the extensive personal involvement of Donald Trump himself in this alleged activity. Normally, when a big company gets sued, the CEO doesn’t drop everything and start going through documents. That’s what various other professionals are for. The details of Trump’s alleged direct personal involvement in this case were striking. </p>
<p>Second, one of the challenges here is that prosecutors are trying to hold Trump responsible for an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/13/us/politics/trump-classified-material-fbi.html">affidavit that a lawyer signed</a> that included untrue statements that Trump did not have the documents the government was asking him to return. And to make that case stick, prosecutors will really have to show that Trump himself had some involvement with that. </p>
<p>Count 32 in the indictment focuses on conspiracy and charges against Trump and his aide Walt Nauta, as well as “others known and unknown to the grand jury.” The U.S. attorney general is reserving the right to say other people were conspirators, and that will have consequences. Who are these other people? Is the government’s theory that Trump’s lawyers were innocent dupes and he fed them false information, or were they knowing participants in this criminality? No one else is named, but we are told – by that “others known and unknown” – that there definitely are others. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="White pages are shown with text, much of it blacked out." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482100/original/file-20220831-4764-hl5j8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pages from the FBI’s redacted search warrant affidavit for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate are shown.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-photo-illustration-pages-are-viewed-from-the-governments-of-picture-id1418610718">Mario Tama/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Why did the indictment focus on the movement of the boxes that held classified information at Mar-a-Lago?</strong></p>
<p>The major reason is that all of the charges require some sort of intent. None of these charges would apply to someone who is trying to obey the law. Prosecutors have to show that what was going on here was an intentional, calculated act. </p>
<p>Another reason goes back to former <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/">Secretary of State Hillary Clinton </a>, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-michael-pence-classified-documents-indiana-7b3bfba7cdd8d9d8fd828045ab3208e6">former Vice President Mike Pence</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-classified-documents-investigation-shows-signs-wrapping-soon-rcna88313">President Joe Biden</a>, who have faced their own inquiries into possessing classified documents. </p>
<p>When former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system">that he wasn’t charging Clinton</a> for using her personal email for government work, there were considerations that led him to do that. People who make honest mistakes and cooperate in good faith don’t get charged because, first, it is difficult to make the case of wrongdoing. And there is some level of fairness to say that you don’t want to make public service a booby trap, where if you drop your guard for a second you could wind up in prison. </p>
<p>In this indictment, prosecutors are making an effort to tell the full story and explain why the actions detailed are wrongful. They appear to want to explain why the circumstances in this case justified charges and that this is not a “gotcha!” situation where someone has kept 200 cases of documents that have been carefully screened and one or two documents accidentally got in the mix. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men in police uniforms stand outside a limestone building fronted by police barricades." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531183/original/file-20230609-7870-qoeap5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Police officers stand in front of the U.S. Department of Justice on June 9, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1497184494/photo/former-president-donald-trump-indicted-on-federal-charges-of-mishandling-classified-documents.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=r0m3pZAhLPpACZa_6y_E8raeBdNGqjQ44fu4DKbPR0E=">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>What’s the significance of the many felony counts facing Trump?</strong></p>
<p>Under the sentencing guidelines, which are usually followed, conviction on all counts could likely lead to a relatively short sentence or to no incarceration at all. However, it is important to note that in theory, Trump could be sentenced to the maximum on each count. The sentence on all counts could be made to run consecutively, which would lead to a sentence in the neighborhood of 400 years. I do not think that would ever happen, but it does underscore the power of the judge in sentencing a case like this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriel J. Chin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are 38 felony charges against former President Donald Trump, and while it’s unlikely, he could potentially be sentenced to serve 400 years if found guilty on all of them.Gabriel J. Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair & Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074022023-06-09T02:18:55Z2023-06-09T02:18:55ZDo federal or state prosecutors get to go first in trying Trump? A law professor untangles the conflict<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531053/original/file-20230609-23-4oy7lo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=790%2C431%2C5200%2C3556&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in New Hampshire on April 27, 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-president-donald-trump-speaks-at-a-campaign-event-at-news-photo/1252522283?adppopup=true">Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents he took from the White House to his home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/08/us/trump-indictment-documents">according to multiple sources</a> cited in The New York Times and The Associated Press.</p>
<p><a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110511161240386878">Trump himself said</a> on his social media outlet, Truth Social, that he had been indicted.</p>
<p>The seven counts against Trump – the first president to face federal charges in U.S. history – include <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-73">obstruction of justice</a>, false statements and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924">willful retention of documents</a>, The New York Times reported. </p>
<p>Trump said he was <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-he-indicted-on-truth-social-2023-6">set to appear</a> in a <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article276225626.html">Miami federal courthouse</a> on June 9 at 3 p.m. </p>
<p>The Justice Department <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/donald-trump-says-hes-been-indicted-on-charges-of-mishandling-classified-documents">did not immediately comment</a> on the reported charges.</p>
<p>But the federal charges come on top of other legal trouble Trump is facing at the state level.</p>
<p>Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg <a href="https://manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/">charged Trump</a> in April 2023 with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. </p>
<p>And in Georgia, the Fulton County district attorney is investigating <a href="https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/6/4/23748503/georgia-trump-investigation-rico">Trump’s alleged attempts</a> to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This, too, could result in criminal charges under Georgia law. </p>
<p>If a person is charged by federal and state prosecutors – or prosecutors in different states – at the same time, which case goes first? </p>
<p>Who gets priority?</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xANL5ZkAAAAJ&hl=en">scholar of criminal law.</a> It’s important to recognize that criminal law provides no clear answer how to settle that question. </p>
<h2>No law dictating a path ahead</h2>
<p>Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or federal law dictates that, say, federal criminal cases get priority over state cases, or that prosecutions proceed in the order in which indictments are issued. </p>
<p>The solution ordinarily is that the various prosecutors will negotiate and decide among themselves which case should proceed first. Often, the one that involves the most serious charges gets priority, although the availability of key witnesses or evidence could play a role. </p>
<p>There are a few cases to look to as reference for state charges competing with federal ones. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A white man with a beard looks very serious." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a seven-count indictment against former President Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/prosecutor-jack-smith-of-the-us-waits-for-the-start-of-the-news-photo/1229563865?adppopup=true">Peter Dejong /AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After <a href="https://apnews.com/article/ohio-us-news-ap-top-news-crime-charlottesville-2e61587a0b9c4849b4aec1ec3695ef22">neo-Nazi James Fields drove his car</a> into a group of protesters at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, killing one person and injuring others, he was charged with crimes in both federal and state courts. </p>
<p>The state homicide trial went first. Then, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ohio-man-pleads-guilty-29-federal-hate-crimes-august-2017-car-attack-rally-charlottesville">Fields pleaded guilty</a> to federal hate crime charges after the state conviction and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741756615/virginia-court-sentences-neo-nazi-james-fields-jr-to-life-in-prison">received two life sentences</a> for his crime from both the state and federal charges.</p>
<p>By contrast, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/dc-area-sniper-fast-facts/index.html">“D.C. Sniper” John Allen Muhammad</a> was finally apprehended at a highway rest stop in Maryland in 2002, after a deadly series of sniper shootings in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, which killed 10 people and injured three. </p>
<p>Maryland police <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/10/01/timeline-dc-sniper-attacks/">arrested Muhammad</a>. Then, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91093&page=1">federal officials were the first</a> to file charges. But Muhammad was first put on trial and convicted of murder <a href="https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2022/29a21.pdf">in Virginia</a>.</p>
<h2>Trump’s circumstances</h2>
<p>In Trump’s case, his federal charges – which were not unsealed as of June 8 – are likely to carry longer potential sentences than the state offenses. </p>
<p>The felonies he is facing in New York are white-collar crimes and may <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/04/05/will-trump-go-to-prison-counts-against-him-could-result-in-136-year-sentence-but-its-highly-unlikely/">not result in any prison time</a>, legal experts have said.</p>
<p>Of course, much about Trump’s case is unique. Never has a former president faced federal or state prosecution. That fact alone probably makes priority for the federal prosecution more likely. </p>
<p>An active presidential candidate has faced criminal charges in the past, though. </p>
<p>Socialist Party <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fiery-socialist-challenged-nations-role-wwi-180969386/">nominee Eugene Debs</a> was <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us211">prosecuted and convicted under the Espionage Act</a> for his opposition to World War I in 1918. He <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-presidential-campaign-of-convict-9653-203027">campaigned from prison</a> for the 1920 election, before <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/elections/election1920.html">losing to Republican Warren G. Harding</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A number of court documents, with the one on top saying prominently 'Search and seizure warrant' in bold type and all capital letters." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479038/original/file-20220814-41056-hb12gh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A judge unsealed a search warrant that showed the FBI was investigating former president Donald Trump for possible violation of the Espionage Act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/APTOPIXTrumpFBI/101838a380e34baeb9395b5ccc3ae49d/photo?Query=Trump%20warrant&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=201&currentItemNo=1">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Federal authorities could assert priority over state officials by taking custody of the defendant. States cannot arrest suspects who are outside the state’s borders, but federal law enforcement officers <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs">can arrest suspects anywhere</a> in the country. </p>
<p>It is exceedingly unlikely that federal prosecutors would ask a court to detain Trump in jail before trial. Rather, they are likely to allow him to be released on bail <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/nyregion/trump-bail-reform.html">as the New York court did</a> in April. But their nationwide jurisdiction gives federal authorities an advantage over states in controlling the defendant, in terms of placing and enforcing bail conditions, for example, regardless of where he resides at the moment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207402/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Darryl K. Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If a person – in this case, the former president of the United States – is charged by federal and state prosecutors, or prosecutors in different states, at the same time, which case goes first?Darryl K. Brown, Professor of Law, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1976772023-03-30T22:24:09Z2023-03-30T22:24:09ZTrump indictments won’t keep him from presidential race, but will make his reelection bid much harder<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518608/original/file-20230330-2836-xyrjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=51%2C25%2C5623%2C3751&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2024Trump/fdf2a5bcf6a848a1b418a7f3383fa70a/photo">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a historically significant move, the Department of Justice has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/08/us/trump-indictment-documents">charged former President Donald Trump</a> with seven counts related to his retention of classified documents.</p>
<p>It’s the first time a U.S. president or former president has been federally indicted. Trump was also <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa">indicted in March</a> by a Manhattan grand jury on New York state charges related to hush money payments made to a porn star just before the 2016 presidential election.</p>
<p>Trump is expected to continue his <a href="https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/c2d9c0ea50f9b2b0/?utm_campaign=20230607&utm_medium=website">campaign for the presidency</a>, seeking to regain in 2024 the position <a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-michael-pence-electoral-college-elections-health-2d9bd47a8bd3561682ac46c6b3873a10">he lost in 2020 to Joe Biden</a>. </p>
<p>What are the consequences of an indictment and potential trial for his campaign and, if his effort is successful, his future presidency?</p>
<p><a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-5/#:%7E:text=No%20Person%20except%20a%20natural,been%20fourteen%20Years%20a%20Resident">Article II of the U.S. Constitution</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-an-indictment-wouldnt-end-trumps-run-for-the-presidency-he-could-even-campaign-or-serve-from-a-jail-cell-194425">sets forth very explicit qualifications for the presidency</a>: The president must be 35 years of age, a U.S. resident for 14 years and a natural-born citizen. </p>
<p>In cases involving analogous qualifications for members of Congress, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/138">the Supreme Court has held</a> that such qualifications form a “constitutional ceiling” – prohibiting any additional qualifications to be imposed by any means. </p>
<p>Thus, because the Constitution does not require that the president be free from indictment, conviction or prison, it follows that a person under indictment or in prison may run for the office and may even serve as president.</p>
<p>This is the prevailing legal standard that would apply to former President Trump. The fact of his indictment and potential trial is irrelevant to his qualifications for office under the Constitution.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there seems no question that indictment, conviction or both – let alone a prison sentence – would significantly compromise a president’s ability to function in office. And the Constitution doesn’t provide an easy answer to the problem posed by such a compromised chief executive.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a blue suit, red tie and white shirt showing a clenched fist in front of several US flags." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506724/original/file-20230127-25-rzcolt.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump, at a campaign event at his Mar-a-Lago home on Nov. 15, 2022, in Palm Beach, Fla., when he announced he was seeking another term in office and officially launched his 2024 presidential campaign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-gestures-during-an-event-news-photo/1441799553?phrase=Trump&adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Governing from jail?</h2>
<p>A presidential candidate could be indicted, prosecuted and convicted by either state or federal authorities. Indictment for a state crime may seem less significant than federal charges brought by the Department of Justice. </p>
<p>Ultimately, though, the spectacle of a criminal trial in state or federal court would have a dramatic effect on a presidential campaign and on the credibility of a president, if elected. </p>
<p>All defendants are presumed innocent until proved guilty. But in the case of conviction, incarceration in state or federal prison involves restrictions on liberty that would significantly compromise the president’s ability to lead.</p>
<p>This point – that functioning as president would be difficult while under indictment or after being convicted – was made plain in a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf">2000 memo</a> written by the Department of Justice. The memo reflected on a <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4517361/092473.pdf">1973 Office of Legal Counsel memo produced during Watergate</a> titled “Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office.” The background to the 1973 memo was that <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Watergate-Scandal">President Richard Nixon was under investigation</a> for his role in the Watergate break-in and <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1010.html">Vice President Spiro Agnew was under grand jury investigation for tax evasion</a>.</p>
<p>These two memos addressed whether a sitting president could, under the Constitution, be indicted while in office. They concluded he could not.
But what about a president indicted, convicted, or both, before taking office, as could be the case for Trump?</p>
<p>In evaluating whether a sitting president could be indicted or imprisoned while in office, both the 1973 and 2000 memos outlined the consequences of a pending indictment for the president’s functioning in office. The earlier memo used strong words: “[t]he spectacle of an indicted President still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination.” </p>
<p>Even more pointedly, the memos observe that a criminal prosecution against a sitting president could result in “physical interference with the President’s performance of his official duties that it would amount to an incapacitation.” </p>
<p>The memo here refers to the inconvenience of a criminal trial that would significantly detract from the president’s time commitment to his burdensome duties. </p>
<p>But it’s also lawyer’s language to describe a more direct impediment to the president’s ability to govern: He might be in jail.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a blue suit, white shirt and red tie, wearing glasses, faces a crowd of reporters with microphones on a sidewalk." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/506727/original/file-20230127-25-d1i7qh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani arriving at the Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta, Ga., on Aug. 17, 2022, to appear before the special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/GeorgiaElectionInvestigation/e57d949e422646d8b46e78ca8ac56f99/photo?Query=georgia%20election%20investigation&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=239&currentItemNo=13">AP Photo/John Bazemore</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Core functions affected</h2>
<p>According to the 1973 memo, “the President plays an unparalleled role in the execution of the laws, the conduct of foreign relations, and the defense of the Nation.” </p>
<p>Because these core functions require meetings, communications or consultations with the military, foreign leaders and government officials in the U.S. and abroad in ways that cannot be performed while imprisoned, constitutional law scholar <a href="https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.12987/yale/9780300123517.001.0001/upso-9780300123517-chapter-2">Alexander Bickel remarked in 1973</a> that “obviously the presidency cannot be conducted from jail.” </p>
<p>Modern presidents are peripatetic: They travel nationally and globally on a constant basis to meet with other national leaders and global organizations. They obviously wouldn’t be able to do these things while in prison. Nor could they <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/katrina/">inspect the aftermath of natural disasters</a> from coast to coast, <a href="https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-announcing-intention-nominate-sandra-day-oconnor-be-associate-justice">celebrate national successes and events</a> or <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/13/remarks-president-opening-remarks-and-panel-discussion-white-house">address citizens and groups on issues of the day</a>, at least in person.</p>
<p>Moreover, presidents need access to classified information and briefings. But imprisonment would also obviously compromise a president’s ability to access such information, which must often be <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/what-scif-who-uses-it-n743991">stored and viewed in a secure room</a> that has been protected against all manner of spying, including blocking radio waves – not something that’s likely available in a prison.</p>
<p>As a result of the president’s varied duties and obligations, the memos concluded that “[t]he physical confinement of the chief executive following a valid conviction would indisputably preclude the executive branch from performing its constitutionally assigned functions.” </p>
<p>Translation: The president couldn’t do his job.</p>
<h2>Running from prison</h2>
<p>Yet what to do if citizens actually elect an indicted or incarcerated president? </p>
<p>This is not out of the question. At least one incarcerated presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, garnered almost a million votes <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-presidential-campaign-of-convict-9653-203027">out of a total 26.2 million cast</a> in the election of 1920. </p>
<p>One potential response is the 25th Amendment, which enables the president’s Cabinet to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” </p>
<p>The two Department of Justice memos note, however, that the framers of the 25th Amendment never considered or mentioned incarceration as a basis for the inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office. They write that replacing the president under the 25th Amendment would “give insufficient weight to the people’s considered choice as to whom they wish to serve as their chief executive.” </p>
<p>All this brings to mind Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Supreme_Court_and_American_Constitut/sPiGrv0h6mkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=If+my+fellow+citizens+want+to+go+to+hell,+I+will+help+them.+Its+my+job&pg=PA11&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">admonition about the role of the Supreme Court</a>: “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.” </p>
<p>Holmes’ statement came in a letter reflecting on the Sherman Antitrust Act, which he thought was a foolish law. But Holmes was prepared to accept the popular will expressed through democracy and self-determination. </p>
<p>Perhaps the same reflection is apt here: If the people choose a president hobbled by criminal sanctions, that is a form of self-determination too. And one for which the Constitution has no ready solution.</p>
<p><em>This story is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-indictment-wont-keep-him-from-presidential-race-but-will-make-his-reelection-bid-much-harder-197677">an article</a> that was published on March 30, 2023.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197677/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefanie Lindquist does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With a federal indictment of former President Donald Trump, currently a presidential candidate, a legal scholar explores what the law says about the consequences of such an unprecedented act.Stefanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1978482023-01-19T13:37:53Z2023-01-19T13:37:53ZThe weaponization of the federal government has a long history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505142/original/file-20230118-12-62f853.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C12%2C8647%2C5743&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Nixon urged the IRS to audit his perceived enemies; Donald Trump wanted to do the same.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/tax-form-1040-royalty-free-image/939798290?phrase=irs%20audit&adppopup=true">LPettet/ iStock / Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Now that House Republicans have created a “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/us/politics/house-republican-committee-weaponization-government.html">Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government</a>,” let’s revisit a classic of that power-abusing genre, featuring its greatest star, Richard M. Nixon.</p>
<p>The subcommittee’s express purpose is investigating federal investigators for alleged “illegal or improper, unconstitutional, or unethical activities,” at which Nixon was an acknowledged master. I’ve been listening to Nixon abuse power on the <a href="https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/secret-white-house-tapes/about">secret White House tapes</a> for two decades with the <a href="https://www.virginia.edu/">University of Virginia</a>’s <a href="https://millercenter.org/">Miller Center</a>. I’ve written about his decisions to sabotage Vietnam peace talks to <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4886">damage the Democrats’ 1968 presidential campaign</a>, to time his withdrawal from Vietnam to <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4984">help his 1972 reelection campaign</a>, and to <a href="https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006699">spring former Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa</a> from prison in return for the union’s political support.</p>
<p>This story is a forgotten sequel to the Watergate break-in. No one has ever <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/21/facebook-posts/facebook-post-comparing-obama-allegations-watergat/">proved</a> that President Nixon ordered burglars to photograph documents and plant listening devices at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, known as the DNC. </p>
<p>But Nixon himself created proof that he abused his presidential authority to go after the DNC with the investigative powers of the Internal Revenue Service. He captured this high crime on tape less than two months after the Watergate burglars’ arrests.</p>
<h2>‘Can’t we investigate people?’</h2>
<p>“Are we looking over the financial contributors of the Democratic National Committee?” Nixon asked his chief of staff on Aug. 3, 1972. “Are we running their income tax returns? Or is the Justice Department checking to see whether or not there’s any antitrust suits? Do we have anything going on any of these things?”</p>
<p>“Not as far as I know,” said H.R. “Bob” Haldeman.</p>
<p>“We have all this power and we aren’t using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?” Nixon asked. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men in suits walking on a path toward the White House." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505134/original/file-20230118-23-vtd6ur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Richard Nixon walks with his assistant H.R. Haldeman from the Executive Office Building to the White House for a Cabinet meeting in December 1969.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/CapitolRiotWatergate/4f8c6c2b2fc54c96bcbd7d5502c7c9ad/photo?Query=Richard%20Nixon%20Haldeman&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=8&currentItemNo=1">AP photo/file</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“We’ve got a guy who’s a pluperfect bastard. He’s a loyalist – he’s a fanatic loyalist – in the IRS,” said John D. Ehrlichman, whose title was assistant to the president for domestic affairs and whose job was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/02/archives/federal-grand-jury-indicts-7-nixon-aides-on-charges-of-conspiracy.html">henchman</a>. </p>
<p>“He’s with us, you mean?” Nixon asked.</p>
<p>“He’s our guy,” Ehrlichman said. “One Treasury secretary after another, starting with [David M.] Kennedy, [John B.] Connally, now [George P.] Shultz, has said, ‘Oh, Jesus, can’t you get this guy out of there? Can’t you just take him out? He’s making all kinds of trouble for us. He’s too partisan.’”</p>
<p>The president’s mood darkened. “Shultz is not long for this life, in my opinion, because he’s not being political enough,” Nixon said. “I don’t care how nice a guy is. I don’t care how good an economist he is. We can’t have this bullshit.” His frustration was growing. “Can’t we investigate people?” Nixon asked. “Is there anything we can do?”</p>
<p>“Yes,” Ehrlichman said.</p>
<p>“I would think that we could get some people with some guts in the second term, when we don’t care about repercussions,” Haldeman said.</p>
<p>Nixon wanted to do something immediately about the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Larry-OBrien">chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Larry O’Brien</a>. O'Brien directed John F. Kennedy’s victorious presidential campaign in 1960 and Lyndon B. Johnson’s in 1964. “If you could dirty up O’Brien now, I think it might be a lot better than to wait until later,” Nixon said. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men in suits sitting at a table strewn with papers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505138/original/file-20230118-17-urvo6q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Nixon, right, at a meeting with aide John D. Ehrlichman in 1972.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/NIXONEHRLICHMAN/8b52814648e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/photo?Query=Nixon%20Ehrlichman&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=16&currentItemNo=13">AP photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Abuse of power</h2>
<p>Under pressure from the White House, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/17/archives/former-irs-commissioners-affidavit-on-lawrence-o-brien-audit.html">IRS subjected O’Brien to an audit during the 1972 presidential campaign</a>. The audit found a “relatively small deficiency,” which O’Brien promptly paid. Treasury Secretary Shultz and IRS Commissioner Johnnie Walters told Ehrlichman there was nothing more they could do.</p>
<p>“I wanted them to turn up something and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/11/archives/irs-said-to-shift-plans-for-rebozo-inquiry-on-100000-testimony-by.html">send him to jail</a> before the election,” Ehrlichman later said. There are few purer expressions of authoritarianism than an attempt to jail the titular head of the opposition party during a campaign.</p>
<p>Shortly before Nixon resigned in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee cited his abuse of his power over the IRS in an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/04/archives/the-committees-accusations-article-article-article.html">article of impeachment</a>.</p>
<h2>Chief of staff: Trump requested audits</h2>
<p>In 1998, Congress made it a felony for a president to “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217">request, directly or indirectly</a>,” an IRS audit or investigation.</p>
<p>None of that stopped President Donald Trump from requesting IRS audits, according to his own former White House chief of staff, John Kelly. </p>
<p>“I would say, ‘It’s inappropriate, it’s illegal, it’s against their integrity, and the IRS knows what it’s doing, and it’s not a good idea,’” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/us/politics/trump-irs-investigations.html">Kelly told The New York Times</a> in November 2022. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two men in suits, one with a bright red tie, in an elegant room." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505139/original/file-20230118-7884-4ignci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, right, says that President Donald Trump wanted the IRS to conduct audits on people Trump had publicly attacked.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpJohnKelly/494095061494422ab38b47ea714cf6d7/photo?Query=John%20Kelly%20Donald%20Trump&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=627&currentItemNo=10">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump said the IRS should investigate two former FBI officials, Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Kelly said. Trump has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/23/trump-not-understanding-treason-names-people-he-thinks-committed-capital-crime/">publicly, and baselessly</a>, accused Comey and McCabe of treason, a capital crime.</p>
<p>After Kelly left the White House, both Comey and McCabe were subjected to unusually intense IRS audits, the kind tax lawyers refer to as “an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/us/politics/comey-mccabe-irs-audits.html">autopsy without the benefit of death</a>,” New York Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt wrote. Through a spokeswoman, Trump denied any knowledge of the audits. A Trump spokeswoman also denied Kelly’s account.</p>
<p>If Kelly told the truth, then Donald Trump managed to weaponize the IRS more effectively than Richard Nixon. That’s a sentence that I, as the author of <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4886">two</a> <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4984">books</a> on Nixon’s worst abuses of power, found difficult to type. </p>
<p>Kelly has made exactly the kind of credible allegation that a “Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government” worthy of the name would investigate. Yet none of the Republicans who spoke before their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/us/politics/house-republican-committee-weaponization-government.html">party-line vote</a> to establish the subcommittee expressed any interest in investigating government weaponization by politicians of their own party. </p>
<p>Congress has the power, even the obligation, to unearth and eliminate government weaponization. But if the subcommittee abuses its power for partisan ends, it will merely be an example of the problem it’s supposed to solve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197848/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ken Hughes is a research specialist with the Presidential Recordings Program of the University of Virginia's Miller Center, whose work is funded in part by grants from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.</span></em></p>The House GOP is scrutinizing federal investigators for alleged abuses of power. But will they probe abuses that may have been committed by members of their own party?Ken Hughes, Research Specialist, the Miller Center, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1977732023-01-13T13:33:15Z2023-01-13T13:33:15ZSpecial counsels, like those examining Biden’s and Trump’s handling of classified documents, are intended to be independent – but they aren’t entirely<p>Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general">Merrick Garland</a> has now appointed two veteran prosecutors as special counsels to oversee investigations into how President Joe Biden and former President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/donald-j-trump/">Donald Trump</a> handled classified documents after leaving office – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/12/us/biden-classified-documents">Biden after he ended his terms as vice president</a> in 2017, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump.html">Trump after leaving the Oval Office</a> in 2021. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/politics/who-is-robert-hur-special-counsel/index.html">Robert Hur</a>, a former federal prosecutor in Maryland, will investigate whether Biden or any of his staff or associates mishandled classified information. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump.html">Jack Smith</a>, a longtime top investigator in the Department of Justice, is overseeing <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0">two criminal investigations</a> into former President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/donald-j-trump/">Donald Trump</a>.</p>
<p>Garland’s goal, in both cases, is to shield the probes from the appearance of partisanship.</p>
<p>But in <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109406714029467005">immediate</a> and <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109418948251497568">repeated</a> attacks, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuWwzsROQSU">Trump</a>, and some of his <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@RepMTG/posts/109427543912303347">allies</a>, alleged <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109423468870178087">political bias</a> anyway. For instance, in one highly charged social media post, the former president argued that he won’t “<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109423251440782165">get a fair shake</a>” from Smith.</p>
<p>Biden, for his part, has said he is “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/12/us/biden-classified-documents#biden-said-he-was-cooperating-fully-and-completely-with-a-justice-department-review">cooperating fully and completely</a>” with the Justice Department’s inquiries.</p>
<p>Fairness and justice, though, are what Garland appointed Smith and Hur to deliver. In his announcement that Smith would take charge of the Department of Justice investigations into Trump’s role in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/pro-trump-rioters-storm-u-s-capitol-as-his-election-tantrum-leads-to-violence-149142">Jan. 6 insurrection</a> and Trump’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fbis-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-reveals-how-trump-may-have-compromised-national-security-a-legal-expert-answers-5-key-questions-189500">handling of classified government documents</a>, Garland described Smith <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-appointment-special-counsel">as someone who</a> “has built a reputation as an impartial and determined prosecutor.”</p>
<p>When appointing Hur, Garland emphasized his “<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-1">department’s commitment to both independence and accountability</a> in particularly sensitive matters and to making decisions indisputably guided only by the facts and the law.”</p>
<p>In his own statement, Smith, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137847204/who-is-doj-special-counsel-jack-smith">who most recently</a> investigated and prosecuted war crimes at <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court">the International Criminal Court</a> in <a href="https://www.denhaag.nl/en/in-the-city/introducing-the-hague/a-short-history-of-the-hague.htm">The Hague</a>, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-special-counsel-jack-smith">promised to</a> “independently … move the investigations forward … to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”</p>
<p>From my perspective as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vXXZBEkAAAAJ&hl=en">a political scientist</a> who studies presidential systems, I believe that while special counsels are intended to be independent, in practice they are aren’t entirely. Here’s why.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man with dark hair and a salt-and-pepper beard, sitting behind a large table or desk." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Special Counsel Jack Smith, examining Trump’s actions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/NetherlandsKosovoWarCrimes/0b477946e8f641f5b2b7521cafd05cb4/photo?Query=Jack%20Smith%20DeJong&mediaType=photo&sortBy=creationdatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=3&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Peter Dejong, Pool</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a suit stands outside." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504318/original/file-20230112-34767-pce8rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Special Counsel Robert Hur, examining Biden’s actions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BidenClassifiedDocuments/28021b9a199041d2b64cd83a941dd593/photo">AP Photo/Steve Ruark</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Independent and special counsels</h2>
<p>Ensuring impartiality in the Department of Justice can be difficult, as the attorney general is <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-president-pick-the-attorney-general-141333">appointed by</a> – and answerable to – a partisan president. This gives presidents the power to try to compel attorneys general, who head the department, to pursue a political agenda. President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/">Richard Nixon</a> did this during the investigation of the Watergate break-in, which threatened to implicate him in criminal acts. </p>
<p>On the evening of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/21/659279158/a-brief-history-of-nixons-saturday-night-massacre">Oct. 20, 1973</a>, Nixon ordered Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/richardson-elliot-lee">Elliot Richardson</a> to fire <a href="https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/archibald-cox">Archibald Cox</a>, whom Richardson had appointed to lead the Watergate investigation. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783492672/william-ruckelshaus-who-defied-nixon-in-saturday-night-massacre-has-died-at-87">William Ruckelshaus</a> to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon ordered Solicitor General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/robert-h-bork">Robert Bork</a>, the next most senior official at the Department of Justice, to fire Cox. Bork complied. </p>
<p>This shocking series of events, often referred to as the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuthKhjAfk">Saturday Night Massacre</a>, demonstrated how presidents could exercise political power over criminal investigations.</p>
<p>As a result of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf">Ethics in Government Act of 1978</a>. This allowed for investigations into misconduct that could operate outside of presidential control.</p>
<p>After passage of this legislation, if the attorney general received “specific information” alleging that the president, vice president or other <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/591">high-ranking executive branch officials</a> had committed a serious federal offense, the attorney general would ask a special three-judge panel to appoint an independent counsel, who would investigate. </p>
<p>The Ethics in Government Act also disqualified Department of Justice employees, including the attorney general, from participating in any investigation or prosecution that could “<a href="https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf">result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest</a>, or the appearance thereof.”</p>
<p>In the decades since the law’s passage, independent counsels investigated <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=814877">Republicans</a> and <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf">Democrats</a> alike. In 1999, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/01/independent.counsel/">Congress</a> let the Ethics in Government Act expire. That year, then-Attorney General Janet Reno <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/counsels/stories/counsel063099.htm">authorized</a> the appointment of special counsels, who could investigate certain sensitive matters, similar to the way independent counsels operated. </p>
<p>Robert Mueller, who was appointed in <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel">2017</a> by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-interventions-in-other-peoples-elections-a-brief-history-74406">possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fbis-russia-probe-threatens-a-reckoning-for-team-trump-75002">possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government</a>, was a special counsel. Some Republicans accused him of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42372603">bias</a>, despite his long career serving under <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582358540/muellers-reputation-in-washington-is-stunningly-bipartisan-journalist-says">both Democratic and Republican presidents</a>.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham">2020</a>, John Durham – another <a href="https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/u-s-attorney-for-connecticut-john-durham-resigns/2432294/">veteran</a> of the Department of Justice – was appointed as special counsel to investigate the origins of the investigation that triggered Mueller’s appointment. Michael Sussmann, a former Democratic Party lawyer and target of that probe, accused Durham of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080841516/john-durham-sussmann-trump-russia-investigation">political prosecution</a>. Sussmann was later <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/politics/michael-sussmann-durham-fbi.html">acquitted</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1597377821353332736"}"></div></p>
<h2>Politicizing the process</h2>
<p>Although special counsels were meant to resemble independent counsels, there are notable differences.</p>
<p><a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43112.pdf">For instance</a>, while special counsels operate independently of the attorney general, both their appointment and the scope of their investigations are determined by the attorney general. In contrast, the appointment of independent counsels and the scope of their investigations were determined by a three-judge panel, which in turn was appointed by the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx">chief justice of the United States</a>.</p>
<p>Also, since Congress authorized independent counsels, presidential influence was limited by law. In contrast, since Department of Justice regulations authorize special counsels, a president could try to compel the attorney general to change departmental interpretation of these regulations – or even just revoke them entirely – to influence or <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/can-trump-fire-special-counsel-robert-mueller-239500">end</a> a special counsel investigation. </p>
<p>For example, at one point, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html">wanted to fire Mueller</a>. After his attorney general, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/04/an-emboldened-trump-says-quiet-part-out-loud-about-why-he-fired-jeff-sessions/">Jeff Sessions</a>, who had recused himself from the Russia probe, did not “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235181043881299969">end the phony Russia Witch Hunt</a>,” Trump fired him.</p>
<p>Seemingly supportive of this, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/barr-william-pelham">William Barr</a>, who had served as attorney general under President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/george-w-bush/">George W. Bush</a>, sent an unsolicited memo to the Department of Justice defending Trump by arguing that presidents have “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf">complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding</a>.” </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">Unsurprisingly</a>, Trump then <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-president-pick-the-attorney-general-141333">chose</a> Barr to replace <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-things-jeff-sessions-did-as-attorney-general-that-history-should-remember-106614">Sessions</a> as attorney general.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234938">In my own research</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.04.006">I have found</a> that abuses of power are more common in situations in which the president and the attorney general are political allies.</p>
<p>For instance, after Mueller finished his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/?itid=lk_inline_manual_21">report</a> in 2019, Barr released a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-attorney-general-barr-s-principal-conclusions-of-the-mueller-report/?noteId=9048a12b-2332-4645-a1be-d645db216eb5&questionId=218b8095-c5e3-4eab-9135-4170f5b3e87f">summary</a> of its “principal conclusions.” Later, Barr’s summary was criticized for “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/special-counsel-mueller-s-letter-to-attorney-general-barr/e32695eb-c379-4696-845a-1b45ad32fff1/">not fully captur[ing] the context, nature, and substance</a>” of Mueller’s work.</p>
<p>In 2020, a Republican-appointed judge <a href="https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/bd363044-e2ec-4a02-b0b3-43fbc48b2f49/note/f003c01c-cde9-4c1e-a926-bc74e461ca7f.pdf">ruled</a> that Barr “failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report” and questioned whether Barr had “made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse … in favor of President Trump.”</p>
<h2>To be or not to be free of partisanship</h2>
<p>The independence of the Department of Justice rests, in part, on who occupies the offices of president and attorney general.</p>
<p>Trump, for example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-impeachment-trump-declares-himself-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-of-america/2020/02/18/b8ff49c0-5290-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html">saw himself</a> as “the chief law enforcement officer of the country” and thought it was appropriate to “be totally involved.” </p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/">Biden</a> has <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3093&context=nclr">a long history</a> of supporting the independence of Department of Justice investigations, dating as far back as his <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/chairman/previous">1987-1995 tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee</a>.</p>
<p>Barr once <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-was-right-to-fire-sally-yates/2017/02/01/5981d890-e809-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html">argued</a> that the attorney general’s role is to advance “all colorable arguments that can [be] mustered … when the president determines an action is within his authority – even if that conclusion is debatable.” </p>
<p>In contrast, Garland – a former U.S. circuit judge – <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-b-garland">insists</a> that “political or other improper considerations must play no role in any investigative or prosecutorial decisions.”</p>
<p>Given that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TeYOZWGu8s">Trump</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-cranks-courtship-top-donors-ahead-2024-presidential-election-rcna59029">Biden</a> may end up facing off in <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/are-we-doomed-to-see-a-biden-trump-rematch-in-2024">2024</a>, it makes sense that Garland would want to appoint special counsels in order to avoid directly overseeing investigations into his boss and into a political opponent of his boss.</p>
<p>Still, Smith and Hur will not be entirely independent of Garland, just as Garland <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-merrick-garland-joe-bidens-pick-for-attorney-general-be-independent-in-that-role-history-says-its-unlikely-151952">is not entirely independent</a> of Biden.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/special-counsels-like-the-one-leading-the-department-of-justices-investigation-of-trump-are-intended-to-be-independent-but-they-arent-entirely-195640">article</a> originally published Dec. 14, 2022.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Holzer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Special counsels can help administrations avoid the perception of bias, but politics is never fully out of the picture.Joshua Holzer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Westminster CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1965592023-01-12T13:21:28Z2023-01-12T13:21:28ZTrump is facing various criminal charges – here’s what we can learn from legal cases against Nixon and Clinton<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504070/original/file-20230111-14-t9gpgf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump waves to people during a New Year's event at his Mar-a-Lago home in December 2022. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1453537376/photo/donald-trump-addresses-the-press-on-new-years-eve-at-mar-a-lago-mansion.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=ZPmora_FI5LKPZ9ezZ3DTxKoHRFR0iuAkvGdPSewxJ4=">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/fulton-county-grand-jury-trump-election/index.html">Georgia special grand jury has finished its work</a> investigating whether former president Donald Trump and his allies committed crimes when trying to overturn the 2020 election results.</p>
<p>While special grand juries cannot themselves issue indictments, they can recommend district attorneys do so. This and other recent news about Trump’s mounting legal problems has led to a number of legal experts and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/10/georgia-fulton-investigation-trump-indictment/">political observers</a> saying that Trump could soon be indicted.</p>
<p>Trump, meanwhile, faces several other criminal investigations that could also result in indictments. The Department of Justice is <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23306941/donald-trump-crimes-criminal-investigation-mar-a-lago-fbi-january-6-election-georgia-new-york">investigating Trump</a> for retaining government documents in violation of several federal laws. </p>
<p>And the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol <a href="https://apnews.com/article/january-6-final-hearing-investigation-wraps-0bceb95826c1c836023d2810ccbeccca">referred Trump</a> to the Department of Justice in December 2022, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145160544/jan-6-report-committee-donald-trump">citing multiple likely</a> criminal violations in his role of orchestrating an attack on the Capitol. The Department of Justice’s special counsel is now investigating. </p>
<p>Trump, who may become the first former president of the United States to be indicted by a court of law, is not the first modern president with <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-presidents-have-been-tied-to-a-crime-a-history-1534943720">legal problems</a>. But the question of whether a president – sitting or former – should be charged with a crime has come up three times in the last half-century. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://law.wayne.edu/profile/ew9862">legal scholar</a>, I understand the important questions raised about the rule of law within U.S. democracy by the possible indictment of a former president. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://rolalliance.org/rol-alliance-impact/rule-of-law-democracy/">rule of law</a> means that no one is above the law. It ensures that the rules are made by and for the people. Those rules are enforced equally and adjudicated through well-established procedures. For the rule of law to prevail, any decision to indict a former president – or not to – has to be credible, independent and supported by evidence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A white man with a blue suit walks past a row of American flags with the words 'Make America Great again' on a banner above the flags." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503889/original/file-20230110-19-tgeje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump speaks at an event in his Mar-a-Lago home in November 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1441806213/photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-makes-an-announcement-at-his-florida-home.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=R2vt8_lclk72suKPt3eLn75Rak5i1LT6SIe18wHUig0=">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Being a current or former president matters</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.processhistory.org/presidential-misconduct-historians-and-history/">Presidential misconduct</a> is not new. </p>
<p>Presidents have engaged in unlawful activity. Some have even run into legal problems while in office. But their legal problems are often settled by the time they leave office and fade from the public’s memory. </p>
<p>The perseverance of Trump’s legal problems raises important new questions about how to deal with misconduct by a former president.</p>
<p>This matters, because federal law treats former presidents differently from sitting presidents. Former presidents do not retain all the legal advantages of being president. For example, former presidents can try to assert executive privilege to shield certain documents and information from Congress, courts and the public to protect the nation, but courts <a href="https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/thompson-v-trump/">have limited their</a> ability to do so. </p>
<p>The question of whether a sitting president can be indicted remains unresolved. In 2000, the Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution">adopted a policy</a> against indicting a sitting president. The policy protects presidents while they are in office so they can fulfill their constitutional duties. </p>
<p>But it is tradition, not law or policy, that has kept former presidents from indictment in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/case-criminally-investigating-ex-president/616804/">the past 240 years</a>. </p>
<p>The legal arguments against indicting a sitting president – namely that it would undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutional functions – lose weight once a president leaves office. A former president becomes a private citizen and no longer has any duties under the Constitution.</p>
<h2>Legal trouble for sitting presidents</h2>
<p>A few presidents have faced legal problems while in office, including Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Bill Clinton. </p>
<p>Nixon famously ran into legal trouble after his <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Watergate-Scandal">reelection campaign</a> burglarized and bugged the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in June 1972 – and he subsequently participated in the effort to cover up the scandal. </p>
<p>Nixon resigned in 1974 before the House of Representatives could have potentially impeached him – or the Senate could have convicted him and removed him from office <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5970967/what-was-watergate-scandal-nixon">for his crimes</a> of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leon-Jaworski">Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski</a>, who was investigating the Watergate scandal, struggled with the question of whether a court can indict a sitting president. </p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution does not say that the president is immune from ordinary processes of the criminal law. It does, however, provide for impeachment and removal from office. </p>
<p>Some believe that because the Constitution establishes an <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-and-prosecuting-sitting-president">impeachment process</a> to address presidential misconduct, it should take precedent over a criminal indictment. Others worry that indictment would interfere with a president’s ability to fulfill his or her constitutional duties.</p>
<p>Jaworski left this legal question open and chose not to indict Nixon in 1974. He transmitted the evidence he had gathered on Nixon’s involvement in Watergate to the House so it could pursue impeachment proceedings. </p>
<p>The grand jury that was also investigating the Watergate scandal, however, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html">voted in June 1974</a> to name Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice. It also recommended indicting seven men involved in the crime.</p>
<p>Nixon’s successor, President Gerald Ford, then faced the question of how to deal with Nixon’s misconduct after his predecessor resigned the office. Ford didn’t have the power to indict, but he could pardon Nixon for his alleged crimes. Ford decided that it was in the best interest of the country to <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-pardons-nixon">move on</a> from the Watergate scandal and to not allow prosecutors to indict Nixon. </p>
<p>Shortly after Nixon’s resignation, Ford <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-pardons-nixon">granted a full</a>, free and absolute pardon to Nixon in September 1974 for all offenses committed during his tenure as president. Ford’s pardon ensured that Nixon would not face indictment as a former president.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo shows two men sitting in arm chairs facing each other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503893/original/file-20230110-16-vgiocz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Richard Nixon speaks with journalist David Frost in 1977, three years after Nixon resigned.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/50426386/photo/frost-interviews-nixon.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=ghRZcU4BWKy-fprsduiqPDQybzP0A86zbemPw8rP1os=">John Bryson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Another kind of legal trouble</h2>
<p>Clinton was never indicted, but he faced serious consequences for his presidential misconduct. His legal problems related to his treatment of and relationships with several women who were not his wife. </p>
<p>Clinton was accused of lying in court proceedings in a sexual harassment case filed against him. His alleged lying led to his impeachment for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice. The Senate voted not to convict him, and thus he was not removed from office. A <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm">federal district judge</a> held Clinton in contempt of court for making false statements in deposition testimony in the case. </p>
<p>Unlike Nixon, Clinton paid a price for his presidential misconduct. An Arkansas Supreme Court <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/07/01/arkansas-court-panel-sues-clinton/9226bfa2-3297-453a-b680-d8a34b1f98f8/">committee sued him</a> for his behavior while in office and asked that Clinton be disbarred for his behavior.</p>
<p>Clinton <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/in-a-deal-clinton-avoids-indictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/">settled</a> the suit by agreeing to a five year suspension of his law license, a $25,000 fine and public acknowledgment that he had violated the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. He accepted a punishment far harsher than the reprimand normally given in similar situations, but escaped criminal prosecution. </p>
<h2>Preserving the rule of law</h2>
<p>Trump now faces multiple criminal investigations that could result in an indictment. No former president has faced so many possible indictments. </p>
<p>Any decision for or against indicting Trump could threaten the rule of law if it is not carefully considered and supported by the evidence. As weighty and historic as the decisions about indicting Trump may seem, they reflect the country’s larger struggle in navigating how to deal with presidential misconduct.</p>
<p>The next steps in Trump’s legal saga will be key in determining how our democracy decides to hold former presidents accountable for their misconduct.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsten Matoy Carlson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump isn’t the first modern president with legal problems, but he would be the first former president to be indicted for alleged crimes.Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Wayne State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1949952023-01-12T13:21:13Z2023-01-12T13:21:13ZCongress investigates presidents, the military, baseball and whatever it wants – a brief modern history of oversight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504124/original/file-20230111-47547-2vxcga.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5697%2C3795&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy walks to the speaker's ceremonial office at the Capitol on Jan. 9, 2023. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Congress/b9c29b908c04433fb3b7438eb8427703/photo?Query=Kevin%20McCarthy&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=now-14d&totalCount=722&currentItemNo=23">AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After regaining a slim majority in the House of Representatives in the November 2022 midterm elections, Republicans unveiled their plans for a series of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/gop-investigations-new-congress/index.html">investigations into the Biden administration</a>. </p>
<p>The new Republican majority – after four years in the relatively powerless minority – plans to investigate <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/politics/house-republicans-white-house-hunter-biden/index.html">the Biden family’s connections to foreign businesses</a>, the possible impeachment of <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/five-key-house-republican-investigations-/6911266.html">Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/20/gop-afghan-probe-worries-white-house/">the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan</a>.</p>
<p>Republicans will also establish a Select Committee on China to assess the growing power of what GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy calls “<a href="https://www.republicanleader.gov/leader-mccarthy-announces-rep-mike-gallagher-as-chairman-of-the-china-select-committee/">the greatest geopolitical threat of our lifetime</a>.”</p>
<p>And the House will establish a special Judiciary subcommittee to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/us/politics/house-republican-committee-weaponization-government.html">investigate “weaponization of the federal government</a>” and potential bias against conservatives in federal investigations. That subcommittee would give GOP Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio the power to subpoena information from ongoing Department of Justice investigations into former President Donald Trump.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/jan-6-hearings-are-only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-when-it-comes-to-important-congressional-oversight-hearings-185369">Investigations are a legitimate function of Congress</a>. But there’s another explanation from political science scholarship for all this digging for dirt: Congressional investigations aimed at the White House <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1017/s0022381613001448">can diminish the president’s approval rating</a>. And House Republicans’ legislative agenda may be frustrated by the Senate Democratic majority and the veto power of Democratic President Joe Biden – they won’t be able to pass bills. </p>
<p>So it’s unsurprising that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40263459">congressional investigations increase under divided government</a>, when Congress and the presidency are controlled by opposing parties, and decrease when the president’s party allies control Congress. </p>
<p>Oversight and investigations almost always occur at the committee level and are dictated by the majority on most panels. House Republicans have the autonomy to initiate investigations into virtually any issue they choose. </p>
<h2>A political weapon?</h2>
<p>Leaders in both parties <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/72494-how-oversight-should-work-rep-darrell-issa/">have stressed</a> that good oversight <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/04/trump-investigation-house-democrats-congress-219624/">requires diligent, nonpartisan work that prioritizes fact-finding</a> over political theater. </p>
<p>Yet each party also regularly <a href="https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-blasts-republican-benghazi-report-">accuses the other</a> of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-wont-talk-to-the-jan-6-committee-democrats-gop-secrets-lefitimacy-trump-weaponizing-government-power-11653597483">using oversight as a political weapon</a>. </p>
<p>Thus, to retain credibility, congressional leaders under divided government are strategic when choosing what to investigate. </p>
<p>Historically, new majorities have targeted the incumbent administration under divided government. But they have also established oversight targets that highlight pet issues, from wasteful government spending to private-sector abuses. </p>
<p>I’m <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/claire-leavitt-1351188">a scholar of government oversight</a> who worked as a fellow on the the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Here are notable investigations pursued by four different Congresses since 1995. They show the range of congressional oversight, from baseball to the conduct of a president – and a would-be president. </p>
<h2>1. Republican takeover in the 104th Congress of 1995-1996</h2>
<p>In 1994, during President Bill Clinton’s first term, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2007/11/congress-runs-into-republican-revolution-nov-8-1994-006757">Republicans regained control of the House</a> for the first time in 40 years. They took over the Senate for the first time in eight years. </p>
<p>New House Speaker Newt Gingrich prioritized the Republicans’ reform agenda, known as the “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990427174200/http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html">Contract with America</a>.” The contract emphasized Republicans’ commitment to rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in government spending, including within Congress itself. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a coat and tie sits in front of a microphone and gestures." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504086/original/file-20230111-32622-hndvs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the first Republican to lead the House in decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/HouseSpeakerNewtGingrich/bd06ec65e7514f8892ad23bef050a335/photo">AP Photo/Greg Gibson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/07/18/independent-house-audit-finds-millions-wasted-controls-limited/c9dd3d37-1a38-4573-9f76-94d188fd2be6/">independent private audit</a> of the House’s accounting practices commissioned by the Republican majority revealed wasteful spending by House officers and member failure to abide by House spending rules. </p>
<p>Republicans in the 104th Congress also launched major investigations into the Clinton administration. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held several hearings into the alleged politically motivated <a href="https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/house-report/849/1">firing of seven White House Travel Office employees</a>. In 1998, an independent prosecutor concluded that <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-11-20-9811200161-story.html">there was no evidence to charge the Clintons for wrongdoing</a>. </p>
<p>Additionally, the Senate established a special committee to investigate property investments in the Whitewater Development Corp. made by Bill and Hillary Clinton when they were governor and first lady of Arkansas. After a 13-month investigation, the Republican majority’s final report accused the Clinton administration of “<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-104srpt280/pdf/CRPT-104srpt280.pdf">highly improper conduct</a>” but did not provide evidence of criminality.</p>
<h2>2. Democratic takeover in the 110th Congress, 2007-2008</h2>
<p>In the midterm elections of 2006, during President George W. Bush’s second term, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/16/house-control-by-year/">Democrats won control of both chambers</a>. </p>
<p>Democrats devoted significant attention to oversight of nongovernment organizations. <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg55749/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg55749.pdf">They investigated the use of steroids in professional baseball</a> and <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg45219/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg45219.pdf">abuses of private security contractors</a> in Iraq and Afghanistan. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Three men sit in suits sit at a table, with a chart behind them showing oil company profits rising over time." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504088/original/file-20230111-17-474ltv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee investigated oil company profits and other issues relating to climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/from-left-rep-jay-inslee-d-wash-and-rep-earl-blumenauer-d-news-photo/99576140">Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Democrats also investigated the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq War, as well as intelligence failures <a href="https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/110345.pdf">in the run-up to the 2003 invasion</a>. </p>
<p>The new Democratic majority also elevated issues it believed Bush had neglected. For instance, <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/globalwarming/mediacenter/pressreleases_id=0045.html#main_content">accusing Republicans of “play[ing] the politics of climate change denial</a>,” House Democrats established the <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/globalwarming/index.html">Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming</a>. </p>
<p>The committee held 80 hearings over the next four years to investigate, among other issues, the influence of the oil and gas industry on <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/globalwarming/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008_id=0059.html#main_content">policy made by the Environmental Protection Agency</a>. </p>
<h2>3. Republican majority in the 112th Congress, 2011-2012</h2>
<p>In the 2010 midterm elections during President Barack Obama’s first term, Republicans recaptured the House majority. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2010-shellacking-is-like-bushs-2006-thumping/">Obama described it as a “shellacking</a>.”</p>
<p>House Republicans focused their attention on examining a range of issues, including <a href="https://www.congress.gov/event/112th-congress/house-event/LC3118/text?s=1&r=15">Islamic radicalization</a> and <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/impact-of-obamacare-on-job-creators-and-their-decision-to-offer-health-insurance/">the economic impacts of the Affordable Care Act</a>. </p>
<p>Republicans also aggressively conducted oversight of the Obama administration. House and Senate committees launched a major investigation into the so-called “<a href="https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-issa-release-first-part-final-joint-report-operation-fast-and-furious">Fast and Furious” gun-running operation at the Department of Justice</a>. The inquiry led to the House’s holding Attorney General Eric Holder <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988">in contempt of Congress</a> for failing to respond to committee subpoenas. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A row of men in suits sit at a table. One leans forward and gestures with his hand." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504089/original/file-20230111-26-r0cqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Led by South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, second from right, the House Select Committee on Benghazi investigated a 2012 attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BenghaziInvestigation/3bf01f8d31df443bafd8b865172240e5/photo">AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Toward the end of the 112th Congress, Republicans also began to investigate the Obama administration’s handling of the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/index.html">deadly terrorist attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya</a>, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. In the next Congress, Republicans established a special committee <a href="https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt848/CRPT-114hrpt848.pdf">dedicated to investigating the Benghazi attacks</a>.</p>
<p>That investigation revealed that when she was secretary of state Hillary Clinton had used a private email server, not the government server she was required to use. The ensuing scandal may have contributed to Clinton’s <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/">loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election</a>. </p>
<h2>4. Democrats take over House in the 116th Congress, 2019-2020</h2>
<p>In the <a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Congress/0bf43b961da74226ab031cb7d9230c5c/photo">2018 midterm elections</a> during Trump’s term, Democrats regained control of the House. </p>
<p>The new majority quickly turned its attention to the Trump administration. In one of the first high-profile hearings of the 116th Congress, the House Oversight and Reform Committee <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rKCWG0VOYw">heard testimony from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen</a> about, among other issues, Trump’s alleged payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of men and women in suits stands around a wooden table." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504093/original/file-20230111-46586-883wtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Democrats in the U.S. House investigated President Donald Trump’s income tax returns.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/democratic-members-of-the-house-ways-and-means-committee-news-photo/1245766550">Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The House Ways and Means Committee began its quest to obtain Trump’s tax returns as part of its probe into accounting practices at the Internal Revenue Service. This investigation led to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/us/supreme-court-trump-taxes-house-democrats.html">protracted legal battle</a> and culminated in a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/20/politics/trump-tax-summary-ways-and-means-committee/index.html">final report issued at the end of 2022</a> and the <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/house-ways-and-means-trump-tax-report/ee70519acd75513e/full.pdf">public release of six years of Trump’s returns</a> soon after. </p>
<p>And in the fall of 2019, the House began its impeachment inquiry into allegations that Trump had threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine in order to <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CDOC-116sdoc13/context">damage one of his primary political opponents, Joe Biden</a>. Trump was impeached by the House for abuse of power and obstruction of justice, though he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. </p>
<p>Democrats also launched major inquiries into the private sector, including into <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/10/house-democrats-find-three-year-investigation-that-drug-prices-are-unsustainable-unjustifiable-unfair/">drug-pricing practices in the pharmaceutical industry</a> and the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/politics/juul-house-investigation-krishnamoorthi-health/index.html">marketing of e-cigarettes to teenagers</a>. </p>
<h2>It’s all legit</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/10/house-vote-republicans-committee-investigate-government/">A Washington Post headline</a> on Jan. 10, 2023, described one of the newly announced GOP probes this way: “House Republicans form committee to investigate the government.” </p>
<p>That’s a broad brief for a committee. But the range of past investigations has shown that Congress can, essentially, investigate what it wants to investigate. Baseball one year, government the next.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194995/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Leavitt has received funding from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy. </span></em></p>The House GOP has announced a slew of investigations, including a review of the conduct of the Department of Justice and its investigations of Donald Trump.Claire Leavitt, Assistant Professor of Government, Smith CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1975842023-01-10T19:47:41Z2023-01-10T19:47:41ZDOJ probes Biden document handling – what is classified information, anyway?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503895/original/file-20230110-5012-za8i7l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=47%2C23%2C5280%2C3970&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What does it mean when a document is classified?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/classified-file-folder-royalty-free-image/579731538?phrase=classified%20documents&adppopup=true">Pgim/ iStock / Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the discovery of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/09/us/politics/biden-classified-documents.html">classified documents found in an office</a> no longer used by President Joe Biden at a think tank in Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>There are superficial similarities linking what was described by Biden lawyers as “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/09/biden-classified-documents-trump/">a small number</a>” of documents found at Biden’s former office and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/us/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-documents.html">hundreds of classified documents kept by former President Donald Trump</a> after he left office. The Trump case has prompted a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fearless-special-counsel-jack-smith-arrives-washington-lead-trump-probes-2023-01-04/">major Department of Justice investigation</a> into the former president’s potential mishandling of classified materials. </p>
<p>What kind of information is contained in classified documents?</p>
<h2>Controlled and restricted</h2>
<p>Classified information is the kind of material that the U.S. government or an agency deems sensitive enough to national security that access to it must be controlled and restricted.</p>
<p>There are several degrees of classification. Documents related to nuclear weapons will have different classification levels depending on the sensitivity of the information contained. Documents containing information related to nuclear weapons design or their location would be highly classified. Other information may still be highly classified but deemed not as sensitive. For example, in 2010 <a href="https://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/04/nuclearstockpile/">President Barack Obama declassified</a> the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile.</p>
<p>In general, classified documents must be handled in a way that protects the integrity and confidentiality of the information they contain. This includes securing documents in a safe or other authorized storage container when the documents are not being used by staff. If staff members need to move them from one place to another, they must follow security protocols to do so. </p>
<p>Though classified information can be taken off the premises in the course of official duties, taking classified documents home is prohibited by <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information">executive order</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The head of a middle-aged man peers above the U.S. presidential insignia." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478983/original/file-20220812-3890-kr4gqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former U.S. President Donald Trump at White House in 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-looks-on-during-a-ceremony-news-photo/1229998808?adppopup=true">Saul Loeb /AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Clearance and classification</h2>
<p>Before coming to <a href="https://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?pid=1006509">academia, I worked for many years</a> as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. </p>
<p>I held a top secret clearance, frequently worked with classified information and participated in classified meetings. For example, I dealt with information related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation.</p>
<p>Handling written classified information is generally straightforward. Documents are marked indicating classification levels. </p>
<p>Tens of thousands of people working for the U.S. government both directly and as contractors <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/top-secret-america/2010/07/19/hidden-world-growing-beyond-control-2/">have security clearances allowing access to classified information</a>. Many people with security clearances never handle classified material but need to be cleared so they can be present when classified information is discussed.</p>
<p>But not all of classified details describe covert operations or identities of spies. Many are rather mundane. A former colleague of mine who was a retired CIA analyst used to tell his students he would never knowingly, but almost certainly would inadvertently, share a tidbit of classified information in the classroom. It is difficult to remember many “smaller” details that are sensitive.</p>
<p>Dealing with large amounts of classified information over a career increases the possibility of accidentally sharing a small nugget. Sharing classified information knowingly, or revealing information one should know is sensitive, is a different matter. </p>
<p>Here’s how the system of classification works.</p>
<h2>Classification levels and content</h2>
<p>The U.S. government uses <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information">three levels of classification</a> to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.</p>
<p>The lowest level, confidential, designates information whose release could damage U.S. national security. The designation “secret” refers to information whose disclosure could cause “serious” damage to U.S. national security. The designation “top secret” means disclosure of the document could cause “exceptionally grave” damage to national security. </p>
<p>At the top secret level, some information is “<a href="https://www.commerce.gov/osy/programs/information-security/sensitive-compartmented-information-sci-program">compartmented</a>.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it to reduce the risk of any revelations. Just because someone has a clearance at a level that matches a document doesn’t mean the person has a need to access it. </p>
<p>This is often used for the most highly sensitive information, such as that pertaining to sources and methods – that is, how and from where intelligence is collected.</p>
<p>Several other designations indicate restricted access within the top secret and secret designations. The <a href="https://www.directives.doe.gov/terms_definitions/critical-nuclear-weapon-design-information-cnwdi#:%7E:text=A%20DoD%20category%20of%20weapon,demolition%20munitions%2C%20or%20test%20device.">Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information</a> is a designation given to classified material related to the design and operation of nuclear weapons. This designation would be in addition to a secret or top secret designation, but is not a level of classification. For example, a person with a top secret clearance working on counterinsurgency issues would not have Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information access.</p>
<p>It is common for written documents to contain information that is classified at different levels, and some information that isn’t even classified. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker “U,” indicating the title and existence of the document are unclassified. </p>
<p>Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.</p>
<p>A sitting president can access any classified material. </p>
<h2>Who decides?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf">Executive Order 13256</a>, issued by Obama, spells out who specifically may classify information.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle-aged man is leaving a stage as he walks past an American flag and the sign of the U.S. Justice Department." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478986/original/file-20220812-12-oe65ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland after making a public statement about the search of Donald Trump’s home.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/attorney-general-merrick-garland-departs-after-delivering-a-news-photo/1242440951?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Authority to take certain information – say, the existence of a weapons program – and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals, including the president and vice president and certain agency heads.</p>
<p>Procedures for <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html#part3">declassification of materials are complicated</a>. However, the president has ultimate declassification authority and may declassify anything at any time, subject to certain provisions of the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-atomic-energy-act">Atomic Energy Act</a>.</p>
<p>Deciding what information is classified is subjective. Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not so obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? Different agencies disagree about questions like this all the time.</p>
<p>Mishandling classified information, especially if it is accidental, is usually handled as an administrative matter. However, more serious violations can <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/petraeus-plea-deal-over-giving-classified-data-to-lover.html">incur criminal charges</a> and penalties. Federal law (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924">18 U.S. Code § 1924</a>) states that anyone who “knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”</p>
<p><em>This story is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-classified-information-and-who-gets-to-decide-77832">an article that was originally published</a> on May 16, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197584/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey Fields does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What are classified documents? Who gets to see them? What happens if they are released? A former State Department and Department of Defense staffer who had top secret clearance provides the answers.Jeffrey Fields, Associate Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1956402022-12-14T13:14:13Z2022-12-14T13:14:13ZSpecial counsels, like the one leading the Department of Justice’s investigation of Trump, are intended to be independent – but they aren’t entirely<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500554/original/file-20221212-1590-rbisur.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C7%2C5276%2C3498&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Merrick Garland, center, announcing on Nov. 18, 2022, that he will appoint a special counsel for the Department of Justice investigation into former President Donald Trump.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/attorney-general-merrick-garland-delivers-remarks-at-the-u-news-photo/1442590814?phrase=Jack%20Smith%20Merrick%20Garland&adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general">Merrick Garland</a> appointed veteran prosecutor <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump.html">Jack Smith</a> as special counsel to oversee two criminal investigations into former President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/donald-j-trump/">Donald Trump</a> on <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0">Nov. 18, 2022</a>, Garland’s goal was to shield the probes from the appearance of partisanship.</p>
<p>But in <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109406714029467005">immediate</a> and <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109418948251497568">repeated</a> attacks, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuWwzsROQSU">Trump</a>, and some of his <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@RepMTG/posts/109427543912303347">allies</a>, alleged <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109423468870178087">political bias</a> anyway. For instance, in one highly charged social media post, the former president argued that he won’t “<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109423251440782165">get a fair shake from</a>” Smith.</p>
<p>Fairness and justice, though, are what Garland appointed Smith to deliver. In his announcement that Smith would take charge of the Department of Justice investigations into Trump’s role in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/pro-trump-rioters-storm-u-s-capitol-as-his-election-tantrum-leads-to-violence-149142">Jan. 6 insurrection</a> and Trump’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fbis-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-reveals-how-trump-may-have-compromised-national-security-a-legal-expert-answers-5-key-questions-189500">handling of classified government documents</a>, Garland described Smith <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-appointment-special-counsel">as someone who</a> “has built a reputation as an impartial and determined prosecutor.”</p>
<p>In his own statement, Smith, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137847204/who-is-doj-special-counsel-jack-smith">who most recently</a> investigated and prosecuted war crimes at <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court">the International Criminal Court</a> in <a href="https://www.denhaag.nl/en/in-the-city/introducing-the-hague/a-short-history-of-the-hague.htm">The Hague</a>, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-special-counsel-jack-smith">promised to</a> “independently … move the investigations forward … to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”</p>
<p>From my perspective as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vXXZBEkAAAAJ&hl=en">a political scientist</a> who studies presidential systems, I believe that while special counsels are intended to be independent – in practice, they are aren’t entirely. Here’s why.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man with dark hair and a salt-and-pepper beard, sitting behind a large table or desk." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499630/original/file-20221207-18-4eqrht.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newly appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, when he was prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers court in The Hague, Nov. 10, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/NetherlandsKosovoWarCrimes/0b477946e8f641f5b2b7521cafd05cb4/photo?Query=Jack%20Smith%20DeJong&mediaType=photo&sortBy=creationdatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=3&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Peter Dejong, Pool</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Independent and special counsels</h2>
<p>Ensuring impartiality in the Department of Justice can be difficult, as the attorney general is <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-president-pick-the-attorney-general-141333">appointed by</a> – and answerable to – a partisan president. This gives presidents the power to try to compel attorneys general, who head the department, to pursue a political agenda. President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/">Richard Nixon</a> did this during the investigation of the Watergate break-in, which threatened to implicate him in criminal acts. </p>
<p>On the evening of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/21/659279158/a-brief-history-of-nixons-saturday-night-massacre">Oct. 20, 1973</a>, Nixon ordered Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/richardson-elliot-lee">Elliot Richardson</a> to fire <a href="https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/archibald-cox">Archibald Cox</a>, whom Richardson had appointed to lead the Watergate investigation. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783492672/william-ruckelshaus-who-defied-nixon-in-saturday-night-massacre-has-died-at-87">William Ruckelshaus</a> to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon ordered Solicitor General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/robert-h-bork">Robert Bork</a>, the next most senior official at the Department of Justice, to fire Cox. Bork complied. </p>
<p>This shocking series of events, often referred to as the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuthKhjAfk">Saturday Night Massacre</a>, demonstrated how presidents could exercise political power over criminal investigations.</p>
<p>As a result of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf">Ethics in Government Act of 1978</a>. This allowed for investigations into misconduct that could operate outside of presidential control.</p>
<p>After passage of this legislation, if the attorney general received “specific information” alleging that the president, vice president or other <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/591">high-ranking executive branch officials</a> had committed a serious federal offense, the attorney general would ask a special three-judge panel to appoint an independent counsel, which would investigate. </p>
<p>The Ethics in Government Act also disqualified Department of Justice employees, including the attorney general, from participating in any investigation or prosecution that could “<a href="https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf">result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof</a>.”</p>
<p>In the decades since the law’s passage, independent counsels investigated <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=814877">Republicans</a> and <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf">Democrats</a> alike. In 1999, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/01/independent.counsel/">Congress</a> let the Ethics in Government Act expire. That year, then-Attorney General Janet Reno <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/counsels/stories/counsel063099.htm">authorized</a> the appointment of special counsels, who could investigate certain sensitive matters, similar to the way independent counsels operated. </p>
<p>Robert Mueller, who was appointed in <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel">2017</a> by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-interventions-in-other-peoples-elections-a-brief-history-74406">possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fbis-russia-probe-threatens-a-reckoning-for-team-trump-75002">possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government</a>, was a special counsel. Some Republicans accused him of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42372603">bias</a>, despite his long career serving under <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582358540/muellers-reputation-in-washington-is-stunningly-bipartisan-journalist-says">both Democratic and Republican presidents</a>.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham">2020</a>, John Durham – another <a href="https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/u-s-attorney-for-connecticut-john-durham-resigns/2432294/">veteran</a> of the Department of Justice – was appointed as special counsel to investigate the origins of the investigation that triggered Mueller’s appointment. Michael Sussmann, a former Democratic Party lawyer and target of that probe, accused Durham of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080841516/john-durham-sussmann-trump-russia-investigation">political prosecution</a>. Sussmann was later <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/politics/michael-sussmann-durham-fbi.html">acquitted</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1597377821353332736"}"></div></p>
<h2>Politicizing the process</h2>
<p>Although special counsels were meant to resemble independent counsels, there are notable differences.</p>
<p><a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43112.pdf">For instance</a>, while special counsels operate independently of the attorney general, both their appointment and the scope of their investigations are determined by the attorney general. In contrast, the appointment of independent counsels and the scope of their investigations were determined by a three-judge panel, which in turn was appointed by the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx">chief justice of the United States</a>.</p>
<p>Also, since Congress authorized independent counsels, presidential influence was limited by law. In contrast, since Department of Justice regulations authorize special counsels, a president could try to compel the attorney general to change departmental interpretation of these regulations – or even just revoke them entirely – to influence or <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/can-trump-fire-special-counsel-robert-mueller-239500">end</a> a special counsel investigation. </p>
<p>For example, at one point, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html">wanted to fire Mueller</a>. After his attorney general, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/04/an-emboldened-trump-says-quiet-part-out-loud-about-why-he-fired-jeff-sessions/">Jeff Sessions</a>, who had recused himself from the Russia probe, did not “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235181043881299969">end the phony Russia Witch Hunt</a>,” Trump fired him.</p>
<p>Seemingly supportive of this, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/barr-william-pelham">William Barr</a>, who had served as attorney general under President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/george-w-bush/">George W. Bush</a>, sent an unsolicited memo to the Department of Justice defending Trump by arguing that presidents have “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf">complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding</a>.” </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">Unsurprisingly</a>, Trump then <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-president-pick-the-attorney-general-141333">chose</a> Barr to replace <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-things-jeff-sessions-did-as-attorney-general-that-history-should-remember-106614">Sessions</a> as attorney general.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234938">In my own research</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.04.006">I have found</a> that abuses of power are more common in situations in which the president and the attorney general are political allies.</p>
<p>For instance, after Mueller finished his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/?itid=lk_inline_manual_21">report</a> in 2019, Barr released a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-attorney-general-barr-s-principal-conclusions-of-the-mueller-report/?noteId=9048a12b-2332-4645-a1be-d645db216eb5&questionId=218b8095-c5e3-4eab-9135-4170f5b3e87f&utm_term=.83d1434abd9d">summary</a> of its “principal conclusions.” Later, Barr’s summary was <a href="https://yarmuth.house.gov/press/yarmuth-statement-ag-barrs-summary-principal-conclusions-mueller-report">criticized</a> for “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/special-counsel-mueller-s-letter-to-attorney-general-barr/e32695eb-c379-4696-845a-1b45ad32fff1/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2">not fully captur[ing] the context, nature, and substance of</a>” Mueller’s work.</p>
<p>In 2020, a Republican-appointed judge <a href="https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/bd363044-e2ec-4a02-b0b3-43fbc48b2f49/note/f003c01c-cde9-4c1e-a926-bc74e461ca7f.pdf">ruled</a> that Barr “failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report” and questioned whether Barr had “made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse … in favor of President Trump.”</p>
<h2>To be or not to be free of partisanship</h2>
<p>The independence of the Department of Justice rests, in part, on who occupies the offices of president and attorney general.</p>
<p>Trump, for example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-impeachment-trump-declares-himself-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-of-america/2020/02/18/b8ff49c0-5290-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html">saw himself</a> as “the chief law enforcement officer of the country” and thought it was appropriate to “be totally involved.” </p>
<p>Meanwhile, President <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/">Joe Biden</a> has <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3093&context=nclr">a long history</a> of supporting the independence of Department of Justice investigations, dating as far back as his <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/chairman/previous">1987-1995 tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee</a>.</p>
<p>Barr once <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-was-right-to-fire-sally-yates/2017/02/01/5981d890-e809-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html">argued</a> that the attorney general’s role is to advance “all colorable arguments that can [be] mustered … when the president determines an action is within his authority – even if that conclusion is debatable.” </p>
<p>In contrast, Garland – a former U.S. circuit judge – <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-b-garland">insists</a> that “political or other improper considerations must play no role in any investigative or prosecutorial decisions.”</p>
<p>Given that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TeYOZWGu8s">Trump</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-cranks-courtship-top-donors-ahead-2024-presidential-election-rcna59029">Biden</a> may end up facing off in <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/are-we-doomed-to-see-a-biden-trump-rematch-in-2024">2024</a>, it makes sense that Garland would want to appoint a special counsel in order to avoid directly overseeing any investigations into a political opponent of the president under whom he serves. </p>
<p>Still, Smith will not be entirely independent of Garland, just as Garland <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-merrick-garland-joe-bidens-pick-for-attorney-general-be-independent-in-that-role-history-says-its-unlikely-151952">is not entirely independent</a> of Biden.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195640/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Holzer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Special counsels are not entirely independent, but they do still help administrations avoid the perception of bias.Joshua Holzer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Westminster CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.