In a few dizzying days, Trump increases attacks against political opponents and the 1st amendment

Washington – President Trump has exploited the weight of his office in recent days to accelerate a remote campaign against his perceived political enemies and his attacks against the protections of the 1st amendment.

In only the last week, Trump replaced an American prosecutor investigating two of his political opponents by a loyalist and openly ordered the Attorney General to find charges to deposit them.

Its chairman of the Federal Communications Commission referred to punitive actions against networks whose journalists and comedians went to the president.

Trump brought a legal action of $ 15 billion against the New York Times to have him thrown by a judge.

The acting American lawyer in Los Angeles asked the secret services to investigate a publication on the social networks of the Governor Governor Newsom press office.

The Pentagon has announced that it imposed new restrictions on journalists covering the US military.

The White House officially labeled “anti -fed”, a loose affiliation of extremists from the far left, as “domestic terrorists” – a designation without American foundation – posing a direct challenge to the protections of freedom of expression. And he said that the legislators concerned about the legal predicate of strikes on boats in the Caribbean should simply recover.

An active investigation into the president’s border advisor on an alleged corruption program involving a payment of $ 50,000 was canceled by the White House itself.

Trump highlighted his aversion fed by the supporter for his political opponents during a commemorative Sunday service for the conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who, according to him, “did not hate his opponents”.

“This is where I disagree with Charlie,” said Trump. “I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them.”

It was an extraordinary series of attacks using levers of power which have been considered as sacred referees of public confidence for decades, say academics and historians.

The aggression exclusively targets democrats, liberal groups and establishment institutions, just as the administration moves to protect its allies.

Erik Siebert, the American lawyer in Virginia, resigned Friday after faced the pressure of the Trump administration to bring criminal charges against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud. In an article on social networks later during the day, Trump said he had “dismissed” Siebert.

A few hours later, Trump said on Saturday that he had appointed the assistant of the White House Lindsey Halligan to resume the best role of prosecutor of Siebert in Virginia, saying that she was “difficult” and “loyal”.

Later in the day, Trump demanded an article on social networks addressed to “PAM” – in reference to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi – whom she pursues James, the former director of the FBI James Comey and Senator Adam Schiff (D -Calif.).

“We can no longer delay, it kills our reputation and our credibility,” wrote Trump. “They dismissed me twice and charged me (5 times!), On nothing. Justice must be done now !!! “

The press secretary of the White House, Karoline Leavitt, defended Trump’s remarks, claiming on Monday that the president is “rightly frustrated” and that he “wishes the responsibility of these corrupt fraudsters who abuse their power, who abuse their oath of office, to target the former president and then candidate for the highest post of the country.”

“It is not a question of armaments at the Ministry of Justice to demand the responsibility of those who arrange the Ministry of Justice, and no one knows what it looks like more than President Trump,” Leavitt told journalists.

While the president called for the pursuit of his political opponents, it has been reported that Tom Homan, the British house advisor, has been the subject of an FBI infiltration case which was then closed by officials of the Trump administration. Homan, According to MSNBCaccepted $ 50,000 in cash of infiltrated agents after he told them that he could obtain government contracts.

At the press conference on Monday, Leavitt said that Homan had not taken the money and that the investigation was “another example of the armament of the Biden Ministry of Justice against one of the strongest and most vocal supporters of President Trump”.

“The White House and the President are 100% 100% because it has done absolutely nothing wrong,” she said.

Some consider recent actions such as an erosion of an expected firewall between the Ministry of Justice and the White House, as well as a change in the idea of ​​the way in which criminal investigations must be launched.

“If the Ministry of Justice and any prosecution entity work properly, then this entity is investigating crimes and not people,” said John Hasnas, professor of law at the University of Georgetown.

The Trump administration also started a military campaign against ships crossing the Caribbean Sea from Venezuela which, according to her, transports drugs and drug traffickers. But the targeted murder of individuals at sea raises concerns among the legal researchers that the operation of the administration is extrajudicial, and the Democratic legislators, including Schiff, have presented a bill in recent days, claiming that the current campaign violates the resolution of war powers.

Political influence has long played a role with federal prosecutors who are appointed political, said Hasnas, but in “the current situation, it is greatly amplified”.

“The interesting thing about the current situation is that the Trump administration does not even try to hide it,” he said.

Schiff said he considered him an effort to “try to silence and intimidate”. In July, Trump accused Schiff – who led the first dismissal survey on Trump – of having committed mortgage fraud, which Schiff denied.

“What he wants to try to do is not only to continue me and Letitia James or Lisa Cook, but rather send a message that anyone holds his head on anything, anyone who has the audacity to call his corruption will be a target, and they will pursue you,” Schiff said in an interview on Sunday.

Trump has campaigned in part on the protection of freedom of expression, in particular that of the conservatives, who, according to him, had been largely censored by the Biden administration and the left -wing culture “awake” in the United States, many of his most ardent supporters – including the billionaire Elon Musk and the president now Vice JD Vance – welcomed Trump as champion of freedom.

However, since Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly sought to silence his detractors, including in the media, and to repress the discourse that does not correspond to his policy.

And in the wake of Kirk’s murder on September 10, these efforts were transformed into an unprecedented attack on freedom of expression and expression, according to constitutional researchers and media experts.

“The administration shows ignorance and astonishing contempt for the 1st amendment,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Faculty of Law of the Berkeley.

“We are in an unprecedented place in American history in terms of targeting the free press and the exercise of freedom of expression,” said Ken Paulson, former editor -in -chief of USA Today and now director of the Free Speech Center for Middle Tennessee State University.

“We have had rules in American history such as red fear, in which the Americans had to go to neighbors to whom they thought they were leaning on the left, but it is a multifaceted and multi -probeform attack against all our rights to freedom of expression,” said Paulson. “I am actually completely amazed at the speed of this and its audacity.”

Bondi recently made a fate against the “hate speech” – which the Supreme Court previously defended – in an online article, suggesting that the Ministry of Justice would investigate those who will denounce the Conservatives.

The president of the FCC, Brendan Carr, threatened ABC and his parent company, Disney, with repercussions if they did not skip Jimmy Kimmel after the air after Kimmel made comments on the alleged Kirk killer that Carr found unpleasant. ABC quickly suspended Kimmel’s show, although Disney announced on Monday that it would come back on Tuesday.

The Pentagon, on the other hand, said that it would force press organizations to accept not to disclose information that the government has not approved to publish and revoke the press securities of the press of those who publish sensitive equipment without approval.

Critics of the administration, freedom of expression organizations and even certain conservative experts who have long criticized the “culture of cancellation” of the progressive left spoke against some of these policies. Researchers also have it, claiming that the amalgamation of administration’s actions represents a dangerous gap in American law and tradition.

“What unites all of this is how clearly he is incoherent with the 1st amendment,” said Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky said that the lower courts have always pushed over the administration of the administration with regard to protected speech, and he expects them to continue to do.

He also declared that, although the Supreme Court frequently took the president of the president in disputes concerning his political decisions, it has also constantly defended freedom of expression, and he hopes that this will continue to do so if some of the policies of freedom of expression above reach the high court.

“If there is something that this court has said on several occasions, it is that the government cannot prevent or stop the speech according to the expressed point of view,” said Chemerinsky.

Paulson said that American media societies must refuse to obey and continue to cover the Trump administration and the Pentagon as aggressively as ever, and that the average Americans must recognize the gravity of the threat posed by such censorship and denounce this, whatever their political persuasion.

“It’s real – an assault in its own right against freedom of expression in America,” said Paulson. “And it’s going to be citizens to do something.”

Chemerinsky said that the defense of freedom of expression should be a problem that unites all Americans, especially because political power changes their hands.

“It is understandable that people in power want to silence the speech they do not like, but the interest of the 1st amendment is to protect the discourse that we do not like,” he said. “We don’t need the 1st amendment to protect the discourse we love.”