Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Jim Jordan denies Trump will carry out threats to go after his political rivals

Ohio lawmaker joins other Republicans in explaining away Trump’s more outlandish threats

John Bowden
Washington DC
Monday 11 November 2024 00:29
Comments
Fox News host jokes that Trump prosecutors should ‘face death penalty

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan tamped down on worries that Donald Trump would weaponize the federal government against his political enemies on Sunday, even as Trump himself has publicly promised to do so.

Jordan was on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday and was presented a list of Democrats whom Trump has said he would press the Justice Department to prosecute at various points during his campaign. Notably, the president has never had the power to launch such politically-motivated criminal investigations or unwarranted prosecutions of their enemies.

Since leaving office in 2021 on the back of a failed attempt to change the election results, Trump has made repeated threats to use the Justice Department to prosecute Joe Biden and his son Hunter for various nefarious activities and influence-trading which Republicans have long alleged (without evidence) that the incumbent president’s family partook in.

But the Ohio congressman brushed away concerns, stating that Trump “didn’t do that in his first term” and pointed out that despite pledging of his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, to “lock her up”, did not actually direct the DoJ to do so at any point in his first presidency.

“I know, but I’m talking about Donald Trump’s second term. Going forward,” Bash pressed.

"I don't think any of that's going to happen, because we’re the party that’s against political prosecutions,” Jordan replied.

Others are not so sure. Maggie Haberman, the Trumpworld-whisperer with The New York Times, noted that the former president had turned to recriminations against his neoconservative former allies, Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo, in his first announcement regarding who would join his administration in 2025.

“He's been talking about retribution or revenge pretty consistently over the last two years,” Haberman told CNN’s Manu Raju on Sunday. “So yes, I expect that will be a thing.”

Haberman would go on to note that the president-elect largely only cared about a few specific Cabinet positions, including attorney general. Trump’s pick to run the Justice Department will be the clearest sign as to whether he will be pursuing political prosecutions of various Democratic opponents throughout his second presidency.

Trump’s victory in the Electoral College and popular vote this past week came after months of warnings from Democrats about the threat Trump posed to American democracy and specifically about plans outlined by his allies working for the “Project 2025” effort to craft what critics call a blueprint for undermining the traditional independence of the Justice Department from the president’s personal oversight.

One of the most important roadblocks Trump faced in his bid to overturn the 2020 election on false pretense of fraud was Bill Barr, then attorney general, who refuted his boss’s claims that federal authorities had seen evidence of widespread election fraud.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in