What if the Democrats weaponized the DOJ and DOD?

2021
January 6 Capitol Riot Investigation

January 2021: Following the January 6 Capitol riot, several investigations began into Trump’s potential involvement in inciting the events. The House of Representatives quickly impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” marking his second impeachment.
February 2021: Trump was acquitted by the Senate, as a two-thirds majority was required to convict, and only seven Republican senators voted in favor.
New York Attorney General’s Civil Investigation

February 2021: The New York Attorney General’s office, led by Letitia James, launched a civil investigation into the Trump Organization, examining allegations that it inflated asset values to secure loans and deflated them to lower tax obligations.
Fulton County, Georgia Election Interference Investigation

March 2021: A criminal investigation began in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election results, particularly his call to Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, asking to “find” votes to overturn the result.
2022
House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

June-December 2022: The committee held a series of televised hearings, presenting evidence and testimonies on Trump’s actions related to January 6. These hearings culminated in a final report, which recommended criminal charges for Trump’s role in attempting to overturn the election.
Mar-a-Lago Document Investigation

August 2022: FBI agents executed a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, retrieving classified documents he allegedly took from the White House. This led to a separate DOJ investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.
New York Attorney General Lawsuit

September 2022: Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, his children, and the Trump Organization, seeking $250 million in damages for alleged financial misrepresentations to secure favorable loans and insurance policies.
2023
Special Counsel Investigation by Jack Smith

March 2023: Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel to oversee the DOJ’s investigations related to both January 6 and the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Indictments for Mar-a-Lago Documents

June 2023: Trump was indicted on 37 counts, including willful retention of national defense information and obstruction, related to classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. An additional indictment was filed in August, adding more counts.
Georgia Election Interference Indictment

August 2023: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis indicted Trump and 18 associates on racketeering charges and other offenses related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. This marked one of the most serious legal challenges, citing a coordinated effort to manipulate the election results.
Federal January 6 Case

August 2023: Trump was indicted on four counts by Special Counsel Jack Smith, relating to his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election. Charges included conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
New York Civil Fraud Trial Begins

October 2023: Trump’s civil fraud trial began in New York, where he faced allegations of financial misconduct in inflating the Trump Organization’s asset values. This case proceeded without a jury, as it was a civil matter.
2024
Ongoing Legal Proceedings

January 2024 (Expected): Trials for Trump’s various criminal indictments, particularly those stemming from the classified documents case and January 6, were expected to begin in early 2024.

If, hypothetically, the DOJ and DOD were “weaponized” to prevent a political opponent from appearing on ballots, it would raise significant constitutional and legal challenges and likely lead to substantial public debate and litigation. Here are some of the potential legal, political, and social implications of such a scenario:

Constitutional Challenges and Court Involvement:

The judiciary, especially federal courts and the Supreme Court, would likely play a key role in examining the legality of any DOJ or DOD actions that could affect a candidate’s eligibility. The courts would scrutinize whether actions taken align with constitutional protections, such as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect free speech, equal protection, and fair access to elections.
Federal vs. State Jurisdiction on Ballot Access:

States have broad authority over election administration, including ballot access requirements. Federal actions that appear to interfere with this process could lead states or candidates to file lawsuits claiming federal overreach. State courts and legislatures might also intervene to protect their electoral prerogatives.
Political Ramifications and Public Response:

Such a move could be viewed by many as an unprecedented use of federal power, likely sparking widespread public debate and activism. Supporters and critics would likely mobilize in response, potentially impacting public opinion, media coverage, and political dynamics across the country.
Congressional Investigations:

Congress, particularly the House if led by the opposing party, would likely launch investigations to determine if federal agencies had been improperly directed to influence an election. These investigations could lead to calls for legislative reforms to limit perceived overreach by federal agencies in political matters.
Implications for Executive Authority:

If the DOJ or DOD’s actions are seen as extending executive authority in an unprecedented way, there may be calls to limit executive powers, particularly regarding control over federal agencies that oversee justice and national defense. Future legislation might seek to clarify the limits of these agencies in electoral contexts.
International Perception and Diplomatic Reactions:

Actions perceived as attempts to deny ballot access could affect the U.S.’s international standing, especially if allies and adversaries question the integrity of its democratic processes. Diplomatic reactions could vary, with adversarial states possibly using this as evidence of American “hypocrisy” regarding democratic values.
In a scenario where federal agencies appear to take actions that might remove a candidate from the ballot, the combination of constitutional, political, and judicial safeguards in the U.S. could result in intense scrutiny, debate, and potential reforms designed to balance agency authority with electoral fairness.