Trump’s DOJ Is Hollowing Itself Out and We’ll Pay for It
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Trump DOJ attempted to indict six lawmakers for a video advising military personnel to obey lawful orders, but grand juries rejected the charges.
- ❖Mass resignations of qualified attorneys are 'hollowing out' the Department of Justice, leading to a decline in its ability to prosecute real crimes and enforce judicial orders.
- ❖The resilience of grand juries in rejecting politically motivated indictments stands out as a rare internal check against authoritarian pressure.
Insights
1DOJ's Attempted Indictment of Lawmakers
The Department of Justice attempted to secure criminal indictments against six lawmakers who released a video reminding US intelligence and armed forces personnel to obey only legal orders. These attempts were rejected by grand juries.
The news came out that the Department of Justice attempted to indict six lawmakers who had put together a little video saying, 'hey, just a reminder, if you are part of the US Intelligence Committee or the Armed Forces, you have sworn an oath to not obey illegal orders.' and the Department of Justice attempted to secure criminal indictments against them and were rejected by grand juries.
2Grand Juries as a Resilient Check
Grand juries have shown surprising resilience against authoritarian pressure, repeatedly rejecting politically motivated indictments from the DOJ. This contrasts with other institutions like universities or businesses that have been more easily cowed.
It turns out that the criminal justice system is being way more resilient to authoritarianism than say like the university system or the business community or even normal politicians... what a great system grant juries are, right? just like a random representative sample of schmo who it turns out have more courage than like any elite institution that that that you might name right now.
3Hollowing Out of the Justice Department
The Justice Department is experiencing mass resignations (e.g., 14% of attorneys in one year) due to lawyers refusing to engage in illegal or immoral acts demanded by the administration. This creates job openings that are difficult to fill with qualified, civic-minded individuals.
What we're seeing is we're getting mass resignations. I think it's like 14% of the attorneys have have left already after one year. And it it's just because there are lawyers who simply refuse to do the illegal things or immoral things that that the administration is demanding that they do.
4Consequences of a Weakened DOJ
A hollowed-out DOJ will become ineffective at prosecuting real crimes (e.g., organized crime, welfare fraud) and unable to enforce administrative orders from judges. This leads to a breakdown of the rule of law at the federal level.
The first is that the government is going to get very bad at prosecuting crimes... But the other problem as you hollow out and you get all of these people in there who are total muks, they are going to not be able to enforce like the administrative orders coming down to them from the judges and people who aren't really interested in doing that.
5Long-Term Damage to Civic-Mindedness
The exodus of civic-minded federal attorneys creates a long-term problem for recruitment. Future qualified candidates may be deterred by the risk of their careers being derailed by political shifts, making it difficult to rebuild institutional integrity.
It's not like, you know, 3 years from now you can you can go get all those same people be like, 'Sorry about that. Would you mind coming back into I mean like first of all you've ruined their entire like their personal sense of of kind of the rightness of their own choices for having done that in the first place.'
6Speaker Johnson's Disregard for Grand Jury Findings
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson publicly stated that the lawmakers 'probably should be indicted' despite grand juries rejecting the charges, indicating a disregard for the judicial process and the findings of regular citizens.
Mike Johnson was doing a little walk-in talk and he was asked about this and this is what he said... 'I think that anytime you're obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it's a very serious thing and it probably is a crime and and um yeah, they probably should be indicted.'
Bottom Line
The systemic destruction of the Justice Department's capacity could eventually lead to a state where it's impossible to discern whether failures are due to malice or sheer incompetence, making accountability and repair incredibly difficult.
This 'malicious incompetence' creates a foundational instability, where the government's ability to function predictably and justly is eroded beyond simple political fixes, leading to a permanent state of dysfunction.
Understanding this trajectory allows for proactive measures to document and highlight specific instances of both malice and incompetence, building a case for future systemic reforms that address both intent and capability gaps.
The current political climate is fostering a sentiment within certain political factions that the jury system itself is biased and unreliable, particularly in 'blue cities' for certain types of defendants (e.g., ICE agents).
This undermines a fundamental pillar of the American justice system, potentially leading to calls for alternative, less impartial forms of justice or a refusal to accept legitimate legal outcomes, further polarizing the legal landscape.
Advocates for the rule of law must actively defend and educate the public on the impartiality and importance of the jury system, using concrete examples of its resilience to counter politically motivated attacks on its legitimacy.
Key Concepts
Malicious Incompetence
This model describes a situation where systemic destruction, driven by political malice, leads to widespread incompetence within an institution. The initial intent is to undermine, but the long-term effect is a breakdown of basic functionality, making it difficult to distinguish between deliberate obstruction and sheer inability to perform duties.
Ham Sandwich Indictment
A legal adage stating that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict 'a ham sandwich,' implying the low bar for securing an indictment. The repeated failure of the DOJ to secure indictments in politically motivated cases highlights an extraordinary level of unpersuasiveness or lack of evidence, indicating strong grand jury resistance.
Lessons
- Recognize that the failure of politically motivated indictments is not a 'no harm, no foul' situation, but rather a sign that a critical red line has been crossed by the executive branch.
- Understand that the mass exodus of qualified attorneys from the Department of Justice represents a long-term, systemic threat to the government's ability to enforce laws and uphold court orders, impacting all citizens.
- Be vigilant about rhetoric that undermines the legitimacy of the jury system, as this represents an attack on a core, resilient component of democratic checks and balances.
Quotes
"It seems like an attempt to criminally prosecute opposition lawmakers for saying that people should obey the Constitution might be a red line, even if it failed."
"This is a guy who's going to push every button on the dashboard to punish his enemies every time he can. He's got a whole apparatus of muks who are willing to help facilitate those. And we are we're just past the point of internal checks on this stuff."
"You're going to wind up with real destabilization because of this. So you're going to have all these job openings. You are not going to have qualified people applying to fill them."
"It is so hard to fail to secure grand jury indictments. It's so hard to do... That's an amazing testament to like actual regular people in America."
"I think that anytime you're obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it's a very serious thing and it probably is a crime and and um yeah, they probably should be indicted."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Big Law Bends The Knee To Trump | Rachel Cohen | TMR
"Rachel Cohen, a former big law attorney turned activist, details how the Trump administration weaponized the legal system against its opponents, forcing elite law firms to capitulate and hollowing out the Department of Justice, while advocating for a justice-oriented approach to law and society."
LIVE: Bondi EXCORIATED UNDER OATH on Epstein Files and MORE | Legal AF
"Legal AF hosts dissect Pam Bondi's contentious congressional testimony, the Department of Justice's alleged political weaponization, and the alarming lack of probable cause in the Fulton County election data affidavit."
Trump’s Blueprint for Breaking Elections (w/ Ian Bassin) | Mona Charen Show
"Ian Bassin, founder of Protect Democracy, details how Trump's predictable playbook to subvert elections and undermine democratic institutions can be countered through strategic litigation, state-level reforms, and robust citizen engagement."
LIVE: Epstein BOMBSHELLS and Trump’s ATTACK on US LAWS!! | Legal AF
"The hosts dissect alleged bombshells from the Epstein document release, the controversial FBI raid on Georgia election offices, and the arrest of journalist Don Lemon, framing these events as a coordinated assault on the rule of law and independent media by the Trump administration."