Trump's Inquisitors
The former President spends significant time attacking those who are prosecuting him. Who are they and is there anything about them indicating political bias?
In my book, I argue that federal prosecutors became the nation’s “constitutional inquisitors,” borrowing a term Thomas Jefferson used to describe grand jurors. Inquisitors inquire into the facts of a situation and present the results of their findings. They do not judge the facts. They have no interest in the outcome. The ultimate decision is left to the judge and jury.
Yet the identity of the inquisitors plays an important part when determining if justice was achieved and whether the inquiry was tainted by partisan politics. The inquisitors, no less than any one else, are shaped by their beliefs and their experiences. They act based on their individual assessment of the situation and the justice of the result. They have the ability to place their fingers on the scales of justice. Therefore, as I state at the end of the book, character counts.
Nowhere is this more important than in the most political prosecution in United States history: the federal cases against Donald Trump. Although I label these the most political prosecutions, this, as I wrote two weeks ago, does not mean the prosecutions are partisan motivated. In part this is due to the presence of a special counsel. The special counsel operates largely independently from the normal Justice Department processes and influences. This somewhat shields the office from any deparmental partisan bias. It also frees the special counsel to employ a staff to assist. It is this group, in this case, whose character matters. Are they able to set aside any personal beliefs and fully investigate and present the evidence.
To that end, former President Donald Trump has spent considerable time impugning the motives of the Special Counsel’s Office and, essentially, calling them names. In one recent posting, the former President called the Special Counsel and other Justice Department officials a “team of losers and misfits.” He also diagnosed them as suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” that would require them to be “in a Mental Institution” before the end of Trump’s next presidential term. At a rally, Trump called the Special Counsel “deranged” and a “Trump-hating prosecutor.”
Trump has understandably focused his ire at the Special Counsel, Jack Smith. Smith has final word on the charges to be filed against the former President. While Smith oversees the prosecutions, he has deputies performing the work on various aspects of the investigations and prosecutions. To date, Smith and his deputies have brought two cases against Trump. The first, proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, involves the President’s retention of national security and defense information. The second, procceding in the District of Columbia, involves Trump’s efforts to retain the presidency. This second case is the focus of this issue.
Who are the people actually prosecuting this case? These are the people actually litigating the case. They draft motions, interview witnesses, appear in court, and make most of the daily decisions associated with the case. If these people are “deranged” or “Trump-hating prosecutors,” they will have significant impact on whether Trump is found guilty or not. This issue examines those prosecutors to see if the known information about them reveals any type of partisan bias.
Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Thomas Windom serves as a lead counsel in the case and has worked on the case since its origins as an invesitgation conducted by the Justice Deparment. Windom has handled a variety of cases as an AUSA but is most known for his work prosecuting members of a neo-Nazi group known as “the Base.”* He also prosecuted a former Coast Guard officer who wanted to kill Democratic officials. From these cases, and others, Windom developed a reputation as personable but inflexible, blunt and uncompromising.
Windom is an Alabama native. His father, initially a Democrat who became Republican, was a state senator and then lieutenant governor.** Thomas went to Harvard and then the University of Virginia for law school. Following graduation he clerked for conservative 5th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Edith Brown Clement. She had been a leading candidate for the Supreme Court seat now held by Justice Samuel Alito. Following the clerkship, Windom moved to the US Attorney’s office and has remained a prosecutor.
There is nothing in his biolgraphy that would indicate he is a “Trump hater.”
Molly Gaston is the other senior special counsel handling the case. She attended Princeton and then Georgetown Law School. She also worked with the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. This work paved the way to the Public Integrity Section of the DC United States Attorney’s Office.
In her position as an AUSA, she became involved in several high profile cases. During the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, evidence arose indicating that former Democractic White House counsel Greg Craig served as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia. Gaston participated in the prosecution that culminated in Craig’s acquittal. She also participated in the investigation of former FBI Director Andrew McCabe. President Trump demanded the investigation. The investigation ended with no charges filed. Last year, she led the prosecution of Steven Bannon who was found guilty of contempt of Congress. Because of this, she has been accused by conservative news outlets of bias and attempting to restrict Bannon’s right to free speech. They allege she dontated money to President Obama’s campaign and that her mother worked for the Washington Post.
Both Windom and Gaston came to the case from their work on the investigation prior to Jack Smith’s appointment. Most likely, they were selected because of this. Unlike others on the Smith team, they had no prior connection to Smith. Both worked in United States Attorney’s offices headed by Trump appointees. They handled numerous cases without accusations of political bias. No one can impugn Windom’s conservative background. Of Gaston, she is clearly a Democrat. That alone, however, does not mean she acts as a partisan. Even if she did, would not Windom oppose her conduct? Instead, the duo argue together in court and make the same arguments.
This shows that one’s political background and allegiance does not necessarily define one’s conduct nor one’s view of the law and evidence, especially in a criminal prosecution.
I hope you enjoyed this issue and that it made you stop and think. I would love to hear any comments, questions, concerns, or criticisms that you have. Leave a comment or send a message! Also, if you enjoyed this or if it challenged your thinking, please subscribe and share with others!
*There is a certain irony in a neo-Nazi group using the name “the Base” as that is English meaning of the group “Al-Qaeda.”
**WIndom’s father, when he was Lieutenant Governor, served under Don Seigelman, a Democrat, who was later prosecuted by the Bush Justice Department. That case is often cited as an example of a political prosecution.