As legal experts raise concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department, President Donald Trump has publicly added to the list of people he wants prosecuted. His latest comments follow recent indictments against two of his perceived enemies: former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
On Wednesday, speaking with reporters in the White House, Trump called for the prosecution of Jack Smith, the special counsel who secured two indictments against him; Andrew Weissmann, a lead prosecutor in the investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia; and Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general during the Biden administration.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Trump spoke with Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel by his side. Trump directed Bondi through a social media post to expedite investigations targeting Comey and James, who were charged shortly afterward.
“Deranged Jack Smith, in my opinion, is a criminal,” Trump said.
“His interviewer was Weissman — I hope they’re going to look into Weissman, too,” Trump said. Weissman interviewed Smith before an audience at an event this week at which the former special counsel gave his first public comments about the Trump investigations.
“And he had somebody, Lisa, who was his puppet, worked in the office, really, as the top person,” Trump added. “I think she should be looked at very strongly.”
What do experts say about recent DOJ indictments?
Legal experts have criticized the apparent politicization of the Justice Department, especially in the wake of the recent indictments of Trump’s foes.
Neil Siegel, a law professor at Texas A&M University, told NBC News that the Comey case is politically motivated. He said the cases Smith brought against Trump for trying to reverse the 2020 election and hiding highly classified documents were much more serious.
“Those two federal cases against Trump were serious and involved allegations of some of the most grave misconduct imaginable in a constitutional democracy,” he said. “A sitting president likely violated federal criminal laws in order to undo the results of a free and fair election to maintain himself in office.”
New York University law professor Peter Shane argues that the Supreme Court created a system that the president can handle prosecutions any way they want, “no matter how corrupt.” Shane was referring to the 2024 Supreme Court case giving presidents broad immunity for a range of criminal conduct committed while in office.
“Trump’s brazenness has effectively been licensed,” Shane said.
However, Barry McDonald, a Pepperdine University Law School professor, said the Supreme Court could revisit the case if the president engages in explicit criminal conduct.
“If we came to the point where the court’s ruling seemed to be facilitating certain criminal behaviors by presidents, I don’t think anything would prevent them from walking back problematic aspects of the decision,” McDonald said.
