Now that Donald Trump is poised to return to the White House, many individuals who have clashed with him in the past are growing increasingly concerned. Trump has long expressed intentions to take action against those he perceives as adversaries, often through subtle threats, and this behavior was a part of his first term, especially as he fought for re-election.
With his upcoming inauguration, Trump will gain new opportunities to act on these threats. He is also building a team that seems ready to execute his promised retribution. Trump has nominated former Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as attorney general and appointed various criminal defense lawyers to key positions within the Department of Justice.
Additionally, Trump’s support in Congress will likely strengthen his resolve. Republicans who managed to maintain their majority in the House have also vowed to target those who opposed Trump. This has left potential targets of these investigations feeling uneasy.
Former FBI Deputy Director’s lawyer voices fears over political retribution under Trump
Michael R. Bromwich, a lawyer who previously represented former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, mentioned that many clients are fearful of being targeted despite their actions being entirely legal. These individuals worry they could face audits, fabricated investigations, or even criminal probes aimed at silencing them based on their beliefs or associations. They see the Department of Justice being weaponized in ways that could be unprecedented.
Trump’s public threats have ranged from calling for the arrest of special counsel Jack Smith to suggesting legal action against those who were part of the January 6 committee. He has even singled out Republicans who have criticized him. This has caused those in his crosshairs to connect and share information in anticipation of potential consequences.
One individual expressed hope that, if Trump surrounds himself with knowledgeable advisors, he might focus on policy goals rather than vengeance. However, doubts persist about whether he can resist the temptation to target his perceived enemies.
A former senior Republican aide noted that Trump’s circle has shifted, and the traditional checks on his actions may no longer be present. Moreover, recent court rulings have suggested that former presidents might not face as many legal restraints as before, raising further concerns about the impact of Trump’s return.
As a result, those who have opposed him remain on edge, knowing that Trump has often acted on his threats in the past. The lack of restraints and the possibility that he will take action both seriously and literally are causes for alarm.
Mark Zaid, an attorney representing several individuals who have angered Trump, expressed concerns that the new administration could use the law in ways never seen before. He pointed out that those working in intelligence, for example, would have little recourse if they were targeted, such as by losing their security clearances, which could severely damage their careers.
Zaid also mentioned advising some clients to be prepared to leave the country during the inauguration, citing Trump’s past promises and rhetoric. He stressed that while much of what Trump says might be dismissed as rhetoric, it would be foolish to ignore his stated intentions.
The most fear for many is the possibility of prolonged investigations, whether through the Justice Department or Congress. Bromwich suggested that if the Justice Department remains prudent, it will leave the investigations largely to the House of Representatives.
However, he acknowledged the potential for Trump or his allies to initiate investigations based on personal grievances, which could lead to costly and damaging consequences for the individuals targeted.
Throughout his first term, Trump sought investigations or prosecutions of those he considered enemies, though most of these efforts gained little traction. A similar outcome could be expected in his second term, with possible resistance from the Justice Department or legal bodies that might question the merit of such investigations.
Bromwich pointed to the example of McCabe, who was not indicted despite Trump’s efforts to press charges. He noted that even though McCabe was fortunate in this instance, others might not be so lucky. The unpredictability of grand juries and legal proceedings only adds to the anxiety surrounding the possibility of politically motivated investigations in the future.
