Former President Donald Trump has been making repeated threats to prosecute those he considers adversaries — a trend that worries many analysts and experts in legal matters and democratic principles. They point out that Trump’s previous actions indicate he could follow through on these threats if he were to serve another term as president.

During a post on Truth Social this past Saturday, the Republican presidential candidate claimed there was widespread “Cheating and Skullduggery” in the 2020 presidential election. This came despite several recounts and audits that have debunked his assertions of voter fraud. He linked these unfounded allegations to the upcoming 2024 election, warning that individuals — including lawyers and “Corrupt Election Officials” — should be ready for prosecution if he wins in 2024, as he stated that “those who CHEATED will be prosecuted.”

These remarks follow a recent wave of posts where Trump called for military courts to prosecute former President Barack Obama and sought to indict members of the committee that investigated the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021. He also shared images with his followers showing political opponents in prison attire, including President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Richard Painter, who served as an ethics lawyer in the White House under President George W. Bush, compared Trump’s threats to the repressive practices seen in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where political dissidents are often jailed on charges like “extremism” or “treason” for opposing the government.

“It’s exceptionally perilous for democracy if the victor seeks to imprison the vanquished,” Painter expressed to YSL News.

In an email to YSL News, Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump holds the belief that anyone who breaks the law should face the maximum legal consequences, particularly those involved in election fraud.

“There can be no nation without free and fair elections. Look at Venezuela,” Leavitt remarked.

The former president has suggested that retaliating against his opponents through prosecution is a valid response to his own legal challenges, which include one criminal conviction and three ongoing criminal cases.

Painter pointed out that this line of reasoning overlooks key differences between Trump’s circumstances and the threats he has made.

“Joe Biden never ran on a platform promising to imprison Donald Trump,” Painter noted. “When Donald Trump engaged in the conduct he did, an independent prosecutor was put in charge.” This refers to special counsel Jack Smith, who operates with considerable independence from the Justice Department and has secured grand jury indictments related to two federal cases against Trump — one regarding an alleged unlawful attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the other concerning mishandling of classified documents.

Trump has previously tried to prosecute his rivals

Stanford law professor Robert Gordon remarked that while Trump may often exaggerate, there are valid reasons to believe he could indeed use the legal system for vengeance. Gordon pointed out that during his first term, Trump attempted to compel the FBI and Justice Department to investigate and prosecute his opponents, breaking from the established norms that maintain the independence of law enforcement from political pressures.

For example, the Mueller report indicated that Trump’s initial attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was asked by Trump to undo his recusal from investigations related to the presidential campaign and to instruct the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2017.

In the spring of 2018, Trump insisted to White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II that he wanted to direct the Justice Department to prosecute both Hillary Clinton and James Comey, the former FBI director he had previously fired amidst an investigation concerning Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. McGahn had his team write a memo warning Trump that such actions could lead to his impeachment.

Following the March 2019 release of the Mueller report, which examined Russian interference in the elections, Trump also called Federal officials have been urged to “investigate the investigators.” Bill Barr, who was appointed as attorney general by Trump after Sessions, later designated special counsel John Durham to carry out this task.

“He clearly stated that as the head of the executive branch, he possesses both the authority and right to dictate federal criminal justice actions against any targets he deems fit; he does not acknowledge the ‘independence’ of the Attorney General or U.S. Attorneys,” Gordon shared with YSL News via email.

Potential Success for Trump Next Time

Amanda Carpenter, a former aide to Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz, and now working with Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan organization, informed YSL News that it may be simpler for Trump to press his subordinates to pursue prosecutions—even in the absence of substantial evidence—due to weakened checks on presidential power.

“The prosecutions he is hinting at against those who question his authority are based on fabrications, conspiracies, and falsehoods, which is precisely why, when he’s taken these election-related lies to court post-2020 election, his claims have been consistently dismissed,” she explained, alluding to Trump’s over 60 unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the election results.

Carpenter pointed out the intentions of Trump’s allies to undermine the independence of the Justice Department, along with the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling regarding presidential immunity and the dwindling support from congressional Republicans for Trump’s impeachment related to January 6.

“Trump and his team have been working outside of office to devise methods that would systematically dismantle the safeguards that previously prevented him from excessive legal violations during his first term,” Carpenter stated.

Justifying Trump’s Push for Rival Prosecutions

A prominent law professor has publicly supported the idea of using the judicial system for retaliatory measures, suggesting that Trump should not face charges and that revenge prosecutions could rectify this situation.

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, former Justice Department lawyer, and notable conservative, argued in an article for National Review in May that the prosecutions against Trump pose a threat to the future presidents’ ability to act decisively in emergencies, stemming from fears of being prosecuted for their actions. According to Yoo, the responsible parties for Trump’s criminal cases would only learn from their mistakes if Trump’s adversaries faced similar prosecutions.

“Democrats will continue to push charges against Republican presidents without restraint unless they too face the threat of prosecution for their own leaders,” Yoo stated.

In a message to YSL News, Yoo remarked that he doesn’t take Trump’s posts literally. He observed that the military tribunals mentioned in Trump’s post concerning Obama lack the authority to try American officials. As for pictures of Democrats in prison uniforms, he saw them as “a joke.”

“My position, which I continue to uphold, is that Democratic district attorneys are unjustly prosecuting Trump and his campaign team with made-up state charges for their actions during a federal election,” he added. “However, if Democrats persist in interfering with federal candidates like Trump, they are inadvertently enabling Republican district attorneys to reciprocate.”

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, stated that arguments suggesting Trump should retaliate against his competitors using prosecutors—which echo the idea of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”—ignore the real issue of who has genuinely committed significant crimes.

“If the goose committed a serious crime, he deserves to face imprisonment; if the gander has not, then there should be no consequences for her,” he conveyed to YSL News. “Trump engaged in serious illegal activity by attempting to overturn the 2020 election through force and deception.”

Alleged Crimes Committed by Trump’s Rivals

Trump and the memes he shared did not clarify what specific crimes his opponents are supposedly guilty of, except for his claims regarding the Jan. 6 Committee, which he accused of “sedition.”

“Seditious conspiracy,” a federal offense, involves planning to attack or harm the U.S. government through various means like attempting to overthrow or wage war against it. Trump did not explain how he believes the committee, which conducted an investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol using House investigatory authority, committed such an offense.

Regarding prosecutions that Trump might order, Somin believes courts and juries would likely reject any criminal charges based solely on a person opposing Trump on some matter. However, even being subjected to investigation or charges would impose a substantial burden on those involved.

Nonetheless, because federal law encompasses a vast array of conduct, if the Justice Department truly aimed to prosecute someone, it could probably find justification for almost any adult. For instance, he noted that data suggests about half of American adults have tried marijuana, despite its possession being a federal crime.

“This tactic is commonly utilized by various authoritarian regimes. While I’m not asserting that Trump would quickly be able to achieve that, there is a possibility he could take steps in that direction if given the chance,” he stated.

Is Personnel Policy?

During Trump’s first term, his appointees from the Republican establishment often hindered or prevented some of Trump’s efforts to stretch or test legal limits.

For example, Bill Barr shared with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins in an April interview that Trump “would lose his temper” and expressed that those he was angry with should face execution. Barr mentioned, “In the end, it wouldn’t happen, and you could reason with him.”

Vice President Mike Pence stood firm against Trump’s lengthy pressure campaign to have him overturn the electoral vote count from the 2020 election.

Former aides and advisers to Trump have indicated that he will prioritize personal loyalty and fidelity to his agenda when selecting.appointees for his next administration.

One appointment has already been made: JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, who has stated he would not have certified the 2020 presidential election results, contrasting with Pence’s actions.