prosecution

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court on Thursday gave new life to President Trump’s bid to erase his hush money conviction, ordering a lower court to reconsider its decision to keep the case in state court instead of moving it to federal court.

A three-judge panel in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein erred by failing to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request to move the New York case to federal court, where he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

But, the appeals court judges said, they “express no view” on how Hellerstein should rule.

Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, twice denied Trump’s requests to move the case. The first time was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment; the second followed Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts.

In the later ruling, at issue in Thursday’s decision, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the high burden of proof for changing jurisdiction and that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal life, not official actions that the Supreme Court ruled are immune from prosecution.

Hellerstein’s ruling, which echoed his previous denial, “did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed” the hush money case into one that relates to official acts, the appeals court panel said.

The three judges said Hellerstein should closely review evidence that Trump claims relate to official acts.

If Hellerstein finds the prosecution relied on evidence of official acts, the judges said, he should weigh whether Trump can argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties, whether Trump “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

Ruling came after oral arguments in June

Judges Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Myrna Pérez made their ruling after hearing arguments in June, when they spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

Carney and Lohier were nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama. Pérez was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

“President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be immediately overturned and dismissed.”

Bragg’s office declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose allegations of an affair with Trump threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim, said he did nothing wrong and has asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.

It was the only one of the Republican’s four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump team cites Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity

In trying to move the hush money case to federal court, Trump’s lawyers argued that federal officers, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks that Trump wrote while he was president.

Trump’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wall, argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. He also said they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under that ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall told the three-judge panel in June. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

In addition to reining in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts, the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, called the president “a class of one,” telling the judges that “everything about this cries out for federal court.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment. Exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Hellerstein concluded that Trump hadn’t shown “good cause” to request a move to federal court as such a late stage. But the three-judge panel on Thursday said it “cannot be confident” that the judge “adequately considered issues” relevant to making that decision.

Wall, addressing the delay at oral arguments, said Trump’s team did not immediately seek to move the case to federal court because the defense was trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

Merchan rejected Trump’s request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

Zohran Mamdani, the progressive standard-bearer who could become New York City’s next mayor after Tuesday’s election, faces a public-safety trap that has entangled progressives nationwide: Voters want less cruelty, not less accountability. Confuse the two, and even progressives will vote you out.

Even before he has taken office, Mamdani is already fending off attacks from opponents, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other political adversaries. They seek to brand him as a radical by tying him to the national Democratic Socialists of America’s most controversial criminal justice planks, such as declining to prosecute misdemeanor offenses.

Yet, in distancing himself from those specific policies, Mamdani is cleverly navigating a political minefield that has doomed other reformers. His strategy demonstrates a crucial lesson for the broader progressive movement: voters want a less inhumane justice system, not one that is unenforced. If progressives are perceived as abandoning accountability for offenses like shoplifting and public drug usage, they invite a political backlash that will not only cost them elections (or reelections) but also set back the cause of reform nationwide.

Americans across the political spectrum support reducing extremely harsh punishments. They want shorter sentences, alternatives to incarceration and rehabilitation over punishment. The moral case against excessive punishment resonates with voters who see our system as unnecessarily cruel. The evidence is overwhelming: 81% of Americans believe the U.S. criminal justice system needs reform, and 85% agree the main goal of our criminal justice system should be rehabilitation.

But when it comes to deciding which behaviors deserve prosecution, the politics shift dramatically. Mamdani has previously aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that calls for ending the enforcement of some misdemeanor offenses.

This is precisely the kind of stance that can trigger backlash. The 2022 recall of San Francisco’s progressive district attorney shows why. About 1 in 3 “progressive” voters cast a ballot to remove the progressive DA from office. It wasn’t because they disagreed with his policies; in fact, these same voters supported his specific reforms when his name wasn’t attached to them. Their opposition was rooted in a fear that declining to prosecute low-level crimes would create a deterrence vacuum and incentivize lawlessness.

In Los Angeles, George Gascón’s trajectory offers a cautionary tale. As Los Angeles County district attorney, he survived two recall attempts before losing his 2024 reelection bid by 23 points. L.A. voters hadn’t abandoned reform — they’d supported it just four years earlier. But Gascón’s categorical bans on seeking certain harsher sentences or charging juveniles as adults triggered a revolt from his own rank-and-file prosecutors, creating the perception that entire categories of misconduct would go unaddressed. When prosecutors publicly sued him, arguing his directives violated state law, the deterrence vacuum became tangible. By the time Gascón walked back some policies, voters’ trust had evaporated.

This pattern repeats across the country. In Boston, DA Kevin Hayden has distanced himself so forcefully from predecessor Rachael Rollins’ “do not prosecute” list that he bristles at reporters even mentioning it. Yet Hayden’s office is still diverting first-time shoplifters to treatment programs — the same approach Rollins advocated. The difference? Hayden emphasizes prosecution of repeat offenders while offering alternatives to first-timers. The policy is nearly identical; the politics couldn’t be more different.

Critics are right to argue that the old model of misdemeanor prosecution was a failure. It criminalized poverty and addiction, clogged our courts and did little to stop the revolving door. But the answer to a broken system is not to create a vacuum of enforcement; it is to build a new system that pairs accountability with effective intervention.

Mamdani has already shown political wisdom by declaring, “I am not defunding the police.” But the issue isn’t just about police funding — it’s about what behaviors the criminal justice system will address. As mayor, Mamdani would not control whether the prosecutors abandon prosecution of misdemeanors, but what matters are his stances and voters’ perception. He should be vocal about how we thinks prosecutors should respond to low-level offenses:

• First-time shoplifters: Restitution or community service.
• Drug possession: Treatment enrollment, not incarceration.
• Quality-of-life violations: Social service interventions for housing and health.
• DUI offenders: Intensive supervision and treatment.

To be clear, this isn’t about ignoring these offenses; it’s about transforming the response. For this to work, the justice system must use its inherent leverage. Instead of compelling jail time, a pending criminal case becomes the tool to ensure a person completes a treatment program, pays restitution to the store they stole from, or connects with housing services. This is the essence of diversion: Accountability is met, the underlying problem is addressed, and upon successful completion, the case is often dismissed, allowing the person to move forward without the lifelong burden of a criminal record.

Mamdani’s proposed Department of Community Safety is a step in the right direction. But it must work alongside, not instead of, prosecution for lower-level offenses, and Mamdani must frame it as a partner to prosecution. If voters perceive it as a substitute for accountability, his opponents will use it as a political weapon the moment crime rates fluctuate.

New York deserves bold criminal justice reform. But boldness without pragmatism leads to backlash that sets the entire movement back. The future of the criminal justice progressive movement in America will not be determined by its ideals, but by its ability to deliver pragmatic safety. For the aspiring mayor, and for prosecutors in California and beyond, this means understanding that residents want both order and compassionate justice.

Dvir Yogev is a postdoctoral researcher at the Criminal Law & Justice Center at UC Berkeley, where he studies the politics of criminal justice reform and prosecutor elections.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s lawyers have asked a New York state appeals court to toss out his hush money criminal conviction, saying federal law preempts state law and there was no intent to commit a crime.

The lawyers filed their written arguments with the state’s mid-level appeals court just before midnight Monday.

In June, the lawyers asked a federal appeals court to move the case to federal court, where the Republican president can challenge the conviction on presidential immunity grounds. The appeals court has not yet ruled.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of the four criminal cases against him to go to trial.

Trump was sentenced in January to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment.

Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a “political witch hunt,” “a weaponization of government” and “an embarrassment to New York.”

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, will have a chance to respond to the appeals arguments in court papers. A message seeking comment was left with the office Tuesday.

At trial, prosecutors said Trump mislabeled payments to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen as legal fees to conceal that he was actually reimbursing the $130,000 that Cohen paid Daniels to keep her quiet in the final weeks of Trump’s successful 2016 presidential run.

At the time, Daniels was considering going public with a claim that she and the married Trump had a 2006 sexual encounter that Trump has consistently denied.

In their arguments to the New York state appeals court, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the prosecution of Trump was “the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history.”

They said Trump was the victim of a Democratic district attorney in Manhattan who “concocted a purported felony by stacking time-barred misdemeanors under a convoluted legal theory” during a contentious presidential election in which Trump was the leading Republican candidate.

They wrote that federal law preempts the “misdemeanor-turned-felony charges” because the charges rely on an alleged violation of federal campaign regulations that states cannot enforce.

They said the trial was also spoiled when prosecutors introduced official presidential acts that the Supreme Court has made clear cannot be used as evidence against a U.S. president.

“Beyond these fatal flaws, the evidence was clearly insufficient to convict,” the lawyers wrote.

The lawyers also attacked the conviction on the grounds that “pure, evidence-free speculation” was behind the effort by prosecutors to persuade jurors that Trump was thinking about the 2020 election when he allegedly decided to reimburse Cohen.

Neumeister writes for the Associated Press.

Four years after the “Rust” movie shooting, New Mexico officials have moved Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution to federal court.

This week’s filing is the latest twist in the long legal saga after the October 2021 on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, the 67-year-old star and a producer of the western film, had been facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge for his role in Hutchins’ accidental shooting. But the judge overseeing Baldwin’s case abruptly dismissed the charge against him during his July 2024 trial after concluding that prosecutors withheld evidence that may have been helpful to his legal team.

Six months later, Baldwin sued New Mexico’s district attorney and special prosecutors, asserting malicious prosecution. The actor claimed he had been made a celebrity scapegoat because of the intense media pressure on local authorities to solve the high-profile case.

His lawsuit targeted New Mexico special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey, 1st Judicial Dist. Atty. Mary Carmack-Altwies and Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputies, who led the investigation into Hutchins’ death.

The defendants have denied Baldwin’s allegations.

Baldwin’s wrongful prosecution suit was first filed in New Mexico court in Santa Fe.

On Tuesday, the defendants, including Morrissey, exercised their legal right to shift the case to federal court. The decision was made, in part, because “Mr. Baldwin brought federal civil rights claims in his lawsuit,” said Albuquerque attorney Luis Robles, who represents the defendants.

In addition, Baldwin does not live in New Mexico, where the case was filed.

Baldwin could object to the move and petition for it to be brought back to state court. On Wednesday, his team was not immediately available for comment.

A New Mexico judge had dismissed Baldwin’s malicious prosecution claims in July, citing 90 days of inactivity in the case. Baldwin’s legal team petitioned to get the case reinstated and the judge agreed to the request.

That prompted the defendants’ move to shift the case to the higher court.

During his Santa Fe trial last year, Baldwin’s lawyers had sought to turn the focus away from whether Baldwin pulled his gun’s trigger in the accidental shooting to where the lethal bullet came from.

Baldwin’s attorneys repeatedly accused law enforcement officers and prosecutors of bungling the case, including by allegedly hiding potential evidence — a batch of bullets that they said may have been related to the one that killed Hutchins.

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee requested Tuesday that Jack Smith, the former Justice Department special counsel, appear for an interview, part of an escalating effort among the GOP to pursue the perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the committee chair, charged in a letter to Smith that his prosecutions of Trump were “partisan and politically motivated.” Smith has come under particular scrutiny on Capitol Hill, especially after the Senate Judiciary Committee said last week that his investigation had included an FBI analysis of phone records for more than half a dozen Republican lawmakers from the week of Jan. 6, 2021

Smith brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law. Former Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland, who named Smith as special counsel in November 2022, has repeatedly said politics played no part in the handling of the cases.

Smith abandoned the criminal cases against Trump after he won the presidential election last year. Trump’s return to the White House precluded the federal prosecutions, as well as paved the way for Republicans to go after Trump’s political and legal opponents.

Jordan wrote to Smith: “Your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

In just the last weeks, the Trump administration has pursued criminal charges against both James Comey, the former FBI director, and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who for years investigated and sued Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee has been looking into Smith’s actions as special counsel since the start of the year. Jordan said that it had interviewed two other members of Smith’s prosecutorial team, but they had declined to answer many questions, citing the Fifth Amendment.

An attorney for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the House Judiciary Committee’s interview request.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 4 (UPI) — A federal judge has ordered a hearing to determine if the Justice Department is engaged in a vindictive prosecution of El Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in a 16-page ruling on Friday granted a motion by Garcia’s defense team that seeks a hearing regarding a potential vindictive prosecution.

“The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior DOJ and [Homeland Security] officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit,” Crenshaw wrote.

The Maryland lawsuit refers to Garcia’s successful legal challenge in a federal court there, in which he showed the Department of Homeland Security erred when it deported him to El Salvador, which is his nation of citizenship.

While Garcia is subject to deportation, an immigration judge had ruled he can’t be deported to El Salvador, where Garcia, an alleged member of MS-13, said his life would be in danger from a rival gang.

That rival gang is Barrio 18, which is active in the United States as the 18th Street Gang.

El Salvador since has cracked down on gang activities and imprisoned many gang members.

Crenshaw said Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi each publicly “celebrated the charges against him,” CNN reported.

Such public celebrations are insufficient to show vindictive prosecution, though, according to The New York Times.

Instead, Garcia must show federal prosecutors improperly filed criminal charges against him as punishment for his Maryland court challenge.

Crenshaw said Garcia has shown the possibility that the prosecution is vindictive by initiating an investigation into the Tennessee traffic stop within days of the Supreme Court upholding lower court rulings requiring the Trump administration to facilitate Garcia’s return from El Salvador.

The matter arises from a Nov. 30, 2022, traffic stop of Garcia, in which Tennessee police found him traveling from Texas to Maryland with eight passengers and driving without a valid license, Crenshaw said.

The Tennessee police released Garcia with a warning regarding his expired driver’s license and did not charge him with any crimes or civil infractions.

After securing a two-count federal indictment against Garcia on May 21, the Trump administration flew Garcia back to the United States on June 6 to face prosecution for alleged human trafficking and conspiracy.

“Abrego has carried his burden of demonstrating some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive,” Crenshaw wrote.

He said the Justice Department must provide “objective, on-the-record explanations” regarding the prosecution that was brought after the Biden administration said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Garcia.

A hearing date has not been scheduled regarding the alleged vindictive prosecution.

If Crenshaw rules the prosecution is vindictive, he could dismiss the case against Garcia, who remains subject to deportation.

Former President Barack Obama nominated Crenshaw to the federal court in 2015.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A watchdog investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith over his prosecutions of President Trump is based on an “imaginary and unfounded” premise, Smith’s lawyers wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The letter marks the first response by Smith and his legal team to news that the Office of Special Counsel, an independent watchdog office, had launched an investigation into whether Smith engaged in improper political activity through his criminal inquiries into Trump.

The attorneys told Jamieson Greer, the acting head of the office, that his investigation into Smith was “wholly without merit.”

“Mr. Smith’s actions as Special Counsel were consistent with the decisions of a prosecutor who has devoted his career to following the facts and the law, without fear or favor and without regard for the political consequences, not because of them,” wrote Smith’s lawyers, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski.

The Office of Special Counsel, which is totally distinct from the Justice Department special counsel position that Smith held for more than two years starting in November 2022, confirmed the investigation following a request from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who asked it to examine Smith’s activities for potential violations of the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity.

Cotton had alleged that Smith sought to interfere in the 2024 presidential election through his prosecutions and sought to effectively fast-track the cases toward resolution, including by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on a key legal question before a lower court had a chance to review the issue.

But Smith’s lawyers say that argument is contradicted by the facts and note that no court ruling or other authority prohibits prosecutors from investigating allegations of criminal conducts against candidates for office. Politics, they say, played no part in the decision to bring the cases.

“A review of the record and procedural history demonstrates the opposite — Mr. Smith was fiercely committed to making prosecutorial decisions based solely on the evidence, he steadfastly followed applicable Department of Justice guidelines and the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and he did not let the pending election influence his investigative or prosecutorial decision-making,” Smith’s lawyers wrote.

“The predicate for this investigation,” they added, “is imaginary and unfounded.”

Smith, who was appointed special counsel under the Biden administration, brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law.

Both cases were abandoned by Smith after Trump’s November win, with the prosecutor citing longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Donald Trump ran on a promise to use the powers of the government for revenge against those he claims have wronged him. He now appears to be fulfilling that campaign promise while threatening to expand his powers well beyond Washington.

On Friday, the FBI searched the home of John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security advisor turned critic, who in an interview this month called the administration “the retribution presidency.”

Trump’s team has opened investigations of Democrat Letitia James, the New York attorney general who sued Trump’s company alleging fraud for falsifying records; and Sen. Adam Schiff of California, another Democrat who as a congressman led Trump’s first impeachment.

The Republican administration has charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) over her actions at an immigration protest in Newark, N.J., after arresting Mayor Ras Baraka, also a Democrat. Under investigation, too, is former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a longtime Democrat now running an independent campaign for New York City mayor.

Trump has directed prosecutors to investigate two other members of his first administration: Miles Taylor, who wrote a book warning of what he said were Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, and Chris Krebs, who earned the president’s wrath for assuring voters that the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was secure.

The actions look like the payback Trump said he would pursue after being hit with four separate sets of criminal charges during his four years out of office. Those included an indictment for his effort to overturn the 2020 election that was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. The remaining case was dismissed after Trump was elected in November, a consequence of Justice Department policy not to bring charges against sitting presidents.

The Trump team has countered by accusing the president’s foes of politicizing the legal process against him.

“Joe Biden weaponized his administration to target political opponents — most famously, President Trump,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said Saturday. Trump, she said, “is restoring law and order.”

In addition to making good on his promises of retribution, Trump has deployed the military into American cities, which he says is needed to fight crime and help with immigration arrests. He has sent thousands of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers to patrol the streets in the nation’s capital, after activating the guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year.

Taken together, the actions have alarmed Democrats and others who fear Trump is wielding the authority of his office to intimidate his political opponents and consolidate power in a way that is unprecedented in U.S. history.

“You combine the threat of prosecution with armed troops in the streets,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. “The picture is pretty clear for anyone who’s read a history book what kind of administration we’re dealing with.”

Past election investigations are a Trump focus

Trump began his second term as the only felon to ever occupy the White House, after his conviction last year on fraud charges related to hush money payments to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign.

He promptly pardoned more than 1,500 people who were convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — including people found guilty of sedition and of assaulting police officers.

His Justice Department, meanwhile, has fired some federal prosecutors who had pursued those cases. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi ordered a grand jury to look into the origins of the investigation of his 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, and Trump has called on her department to investigate former Democratic President Obama.

The government’s watchdog agency has opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the classified documents stashed at his Florida estate. Those cases were among several that dogged Trump in the years between his presidential terms, including the New York fraud case and charges for election interference in Georgia brought by the Democratic prosecutor in Fulton County.

All those investigations led him to claim that Democrats had weaponized the government against him.

“It is amazing to me the number of people the Trump administration has gone after, all of whom are identified by the fact that they investigated or criticized Trump in one way or another,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a former Justice Department official who is a George Washington University law professor.

On Friday, Trump used governmental powers in other ways to further his goals. He announced that Chicago could be the next city subject to military deployments.

And after his housing director alleged that one of the governors of the independent Federal Reserve had committed mortgage fraud, Trump demanded she resign or be fired. He took to his social platform on Saturday to highlight the claims, as he tries to wrest control of the central bank.

‘I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer’

Vice President JD Vance denied in a television interview that Bolton was being targeted because of his criticism of Trump.

“If there’s no crime here, we’re not going to prosecute it,” Vance said Friday in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Trump said he told his staff not to inform him about the Bolton search ahead of time, but he emphasized that he has authority over all prosecutions.

“I could know about it. I could be the one starting it,” the president told reporters. “I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer.”

Bolton occupies a special place in the ranks of Trump critics. The longtime GOP foreign policy hawk wrote a book published in 2020, after Trump had fired him the year before. The first Trump administration sued to block the book’s release and opened a grand jury investigation, both of which were halted by the Biden administration.

Bolton landed on a list of 60 former officials drawn up by now-FBI Director Kash Patel that he portrayed as a tally of the “Executive Branch Deep State.” Critics warned it was an “enemies list.” When Trump returned to office in January, his administration revoked the security detail that had been assigned to Bolton, who has faced Iranian assassination threats.

The FBI is now investigating Bolton for potentially mishandling classified information, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly. In contrast, Trump condemned the FBI’s search of his own Mar-a-Lago resort in 2022, which prosecutors say turned up a trove of classified documents, including nuclear data and other top-secret papers.

Retribution is wide-ranging, from judges to the military

Trump has also targeted institutions that have defied him.

The president issued orders barring several law firms that were involved in litigation against him or his allies, or had hired his opponents, from doing business with the federal government. Trump cut deals with several other firms to do free legal work rather than face penalties. He has targeted universities for funding cuts if they do not follow his administration’s directives.

His administration filed a judicial misconduct complaint against a judge who ruled that Trump officials probably committed criminal contempt by ignoring his directive to turn around planes carrying people being sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The actions are among steps that seem to be intensifying. Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has fired several military leaders perceived to be critics of the president or not sufficiently loyal, and last week the administration revoked the security clearances of about three dozen current and former national security officials.

“It’s what he promised,” said Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department official and Biden White House staffer who is a law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “It’s what bullies do when no one tells them ‘no.’ ”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Aug. 20 (UPI) — Defense attorneys for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration wrongly deported to El Salvador this spring and then brought human trafficking charges against him once he returned to the United States, are accusing the Justice Department of vindictively prosecuting their client.

In a motion filed Tuesday, Abrego Garcia’s defense is asking the court to dismiss the charges brought against the 30-year-old Salvadoran national is punishment for him standing up to the Trump administration.

“Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been singled out by the United States government. It is obvious why. And it is not because of the seriousness of his alleged conduct. Nor is it because he poses some unique threat to this country. Instead, Mr. Abrego was charged because he refused to acquiesce in the government’s violation of his due process rights,” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said in the motion.

Abrego Garcia, a resident of Maryland who is married to a U.S. citizen, was arrested amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration as part of its mass deportation plans. Despite a court order prohibiting his removal, he was deported to El Salvador in March and incarcerated in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, where he said he was subjected to torture.

Abrego Garcia then challenged his removal in court, prompting the Trump administration to try and label him a gang member in public, while admitting in court it wrongly deported the immigrant.

He was returned to the United States in June, but only after he was charged with human smuggling by the Justice Department.

In the filing, his lawyers accused the Trump administration of conducting “a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case.”

His lawyers point to comments from senior Trump administration officials, as well as President Donald Trump, calling him a criminal following his win in court that secured his return to the United States but before he was charged as proof of the White House’s vindictiveness.

“The government’s motive has been to paint Mr. Abrego as a criminal in order to punish him for challenging his removal, to avoid the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct and to shift public opinion around Mr. Abrego’s removal, including ‘mounting concerns’ with the government’s compliance with court orders,” they said in the filing.

The Justice Department’s case against Abrego Garcia stems from a November 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tenn. Nine passengers were in the vehicle with him when stopped, but he was allowed to continue on his way, not even receiving a traffic ticket.

The government alleges he was the driver in a human smuggling conspiracy, and his defense argues that the Trump administration “has gone to extreme lengths” to make its criminal case.

His lawyers in the filing state that they have tried to secure the cooperation of multiple alleged conspirators who have already been sentenced to testify against Abrego Garcia, with its so-called star witness being a convicted leader of a human smuggling business with three felony convictions and who has been deported from the United States five times.

According to the filing, the Justice Department arranged for this alleged co-conspirator to be released early from a 30-month sentence to a halfway house to cooperate against Abrego Garcia, while relatives or those in relationship with this person also appear to be provided with “similar benefits” for providing corroborating testimony.

In the filing Tuesday, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers argue that nothing had changed in the three years since the traffic stop, except for the government wrongly deporting him to El Salvador and that he challenged his deportation.

“As a matter of timing, it is clear that it was that lawsuit — and its effects on the government — that prompted the government to re-evaluate the 2022 traffic stop and bring this case,” the filing states.

“[N]o similarly situated defendant — an alleged driver in an alien smuggling conspiracy — has ever had to wait two and a half years to be charged with a crime where the facts had not changed since the stop itself.”

His defense alleges that the only explanation for the timing of the charges is that the government has chosen to punish him for fighting his deportation.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty.