Donald Trump's System of Consequences and Incentives
Trump's insatiable urge for payback has swiftly evolved into a methodical framework. During the twelve months, the president's rage and caprices have taken on the guise of government actions similar to analogous to past authoritarian governments. Government personnel who fail to comply are promptly dismissed and replaced by loyalists. Critical officials who question him face indictment, trial and punishment. Opponents have been categorized under presidential memoranda as “unpatriotic”, “anti-Christian” and “opposing economic freedom”, and threatened with prosecution as “terrorists”.
Federal Agencies Restructured
All situation involving prosecution of political opponents and leniency for his allies demonstrates its own unique characteristics. However, regardless of their particular character, they represent examples of what has developed as a systematic approach. These episodes are anything but coincidental. The administration's purge of Department of Justice lawyers and law enforcement officials, coupled with his appointment of loyalists in key roles, started rapidly, promptly took on a consistency, and has now been molded into a system. The justice department and the FBI have been remade into partisan bodies under his direct orders to execute his directives. Wrongdoing has been made standard. It constitutes the apparatus of revenge.
Administration is more concerned with punishing the leader's alleged adversaries than they are with defending our public welfare.
Internal the System
The beginnings of this framework has been uncovered in the legal complaint of several previous high-ranking FBI agents submitted in September in the US district court in the capital against FBI director a senior appointee and top lawyer Pam Bondi for unlawful firing in “a initiative of payback against Plaintiffs for what administration figures judged to be a failure to demonstrate adequate devotion”. According to the filing that a former acting director, the ex- temporary head, describes a conversation in which Patel “openly admitted the unlawfulness of his actions”.
He had attempted to defend law enforcement officers from being fired, the complaint states. He informed him that “administration officials” – interpreted by him to be the presidential administration and justice department – had directed him to remove anyone who they considered as having worked on a law enforcement case against the president. The document continues: “The director stated that he had to terminate the individuals his leaders told him to remove, because his capacity to keep his own job relied on the dismissal of the officials who handled cases involving the leader. He noted that there was nothing he or him could do to prevent these or any other dismissals, because ‘the FBI sought to place the leader in prison and he recalls it clearly.’” When the official advised the director he was breaking the agency's own internal rules, the director allegedly said “he knew that and he realized the essence of the summary firings were probably improper”.
Widespread Consequences
After Patel's reported admission to the official, the DoJ and the Federal Bureau have been dismantled and redirected for his revenge apparatus. Six of the bureau's top officials were dismissed or compelled to leave in the first days of the administration. About 4,500 lawyers at the department have agreed to a “deferred resignation program”. At least several DoJ lawyers, among them those in the southern district of New York, stepped down in objection over what they considered as partisan influence in withdrawing the criminal prosecution against the city leader, the mayor, in return for his collaboration with his ICE roundups of migrants. The anti-corruption unit of the department, which handles corruption cases, has been diminished to two attorneys. The equality section has been devastated: the majority of its personnel has left. A third of executives at the justice department have left. The unit implementing environmental law has experienced the exit of half its management.
Favors and Sanctions
Concerning the mayor's situation, the interim prosecutor for the southern district of New York, she, quit in objection against what she characterized as the “quid pro quo”. A key figure, the president's “enforcement chief,” appeared as the enforcer with Adams on television to declare: “If he doesn't come through, I will return in the city.”. Meanwhile, another figure, formerly the senior DoJ official and a former Trump attorney, who negotiated the agreement, was awarded an appellate federal judgeship, a possible springboard to the judicial branch.
His protection for wrongdoings perpetrated while in government, awarded by the extraordinary judgment of the Republican majority on the judicial body, thus preventing his legal action over the political violence and safeguarding his electoral prospects for the presidential race, is the basis on which he depends to protect his loyalists. Under these circumstances, he has been liberated to enable misconduct. The consequence of the judicial ruling infuses his administration and the political party down to its bones. Trump v United States has metastasized. Similar to a past leader's legal adviser John Dean remarked about the Watergate
