Will 'Lock him up' become a chant against Trump?
President Donald Trump at a Dec. 5 rally in Valdosta, Ga. Credit: AP / Evan Vucci
When Donald Trump had his flock chanting "Lock her up" in 2016, some wondered if as president he would get law enforcement to act against Hillary Clinton or any other political rival regardless of whether a crime had occurred.
Much as Trump raged and demanded it, an anti-Democratic inquisition never gained traction in real life. The president's demand that Ukraine go after then-potential political opponent Joe Biden backfired badly. Now that Trump is on his way out, the question has been raised as to whether any of his actions merit criminal charges from which he was protected while in the White House.
Andrew Weissmann, senior prosecutor in the Robert Mueller-led investigation that yielded numerous convictions for Trump associates related to the Russia probe, published a recent commentary in which he argued that "the next attorney general should investigate Mr. Trump and, if warranted, prosecute him for potential federal crimes."
"We amassed ample evidence to support a charge that Mr. Trump obstructed justice," Weissmann wrote. "That view is widely shared. Shortly after our report was issued, hundreds of former prosecutors concluded that the evidence supported such a charge."
Trump dangled pardons to influence active cases, asked his counsel to crush the probe by firing Mueller and then lie about it, Weissmann said. The president also withheld documents from the impeachment inquiry that might include incriminating information, he said.
As president-elect, Biden hasn't encouraged a "lock-him-up" position. But he hasn't ruled out the possibility of some cases, not of his choosing, being filed against Trump.
"I will not do what this president does and use the Justice Department as my vehicle to insist that something happened," Biden told NBC News' Lester Holt in an interview Nov. 24.
Incoming White House chief of staff Ron Klain told ABC News: "Joe Biden is not going to tell the Justice Department who to investigate or who not to investigate."
Spending at Trump's hotel in Washington, D.C., and other transactions have raised issues under the Constitution's emoluments clause, which bars federal officials from receiving gifts or profits from foreign states. The D.C. attorney general has been pursuing a civil case.
The allegation is that Trump's inaugural committee illegally overpaid his family business by as much as $1.1 million for events held at the Trump International Hotel in January 2017, as The New York Times summed it up on Monday. Such cases, however, may be considered moot in court once he leaves office.
For now, the most likely possibility of Trump drawing hard criminal scrutiny rests with a pending probe by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance's office. Vance and New York State Attorney General Letitia James are exploring whether Trump misled tax authorities, banks or business partners.
Trump has been talking about a preemptive pardon for himself, and for members of his family and inner circle. He would need to act soon, before he loses his presidential privileges on Jan. 20.
But a president's power to pardon and commute sentences is not believed to apply to state charges, only federal cases. Trump also has insisted he can pardon himself, but this idea has never been tested in court.
The tacit admission in a self-pardon that crimes were likely committed might not worry him at all. At no point in his presidency has Trump even expressed a loyal citizen's confidence that the U.S. judiciary is on the level.
Will chants of "Lock him up!" yet echo in mainstream political circles? That may depend on how Trump conducts himself in office and in his business, from here forward, regarding pardons and disputes involving taxes. We're unlikely to know the answer right away. It will be interesting to see if Trump acts as if he has something to hide when there is no election pending.
Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
