On Saturday, the President of the United States shared a quote on social media often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Now, whether or not the quote is genuinely Napoleon’s, mentioning it in this context raises eyebrows, especially if it suggests that the president feels exempt from legal boundaries under the guise of national salvation.
I’m not trying to overly simplify things. When a president suggests they’re above the law because they’re “saving” their country, it’s cause for concern. This becomes even more worrisome when the supposed crisis demanding such authoritarian heroics is, in fact, a construct of the president and his inner circle.
The most generous interpretation of President Trump’s social media post might be that he was merely being facetious. Former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus hinted as much during an interview with ABC News’ “This Week.” He stated, “It’s entertainment for Trump. It’s a distraction.” He pointed out how Trump finds amusement in causing a stir just to watch the response, likening it to tossing a grenade on the floor for fun.
Though this might be the most plausible defense, it doesn’t make it a convincing one. How Priebus can claim there’s “no downside” to such antics is perplexing. Making millions think the president has little regard for the law isn’t exactly a political win.
All presidents depend on a level of trust and cooperation, not just from their loyalists but also from their critics. Especially during a genuine crisis, it’s vital that people believe presidential powers are being used selflessly. Suggesting one relishes crises only diminishes trust and erodes confidence that power will be wielded judiciously when truly needed.
Despite Priebus’ possible theory that Trump acted out of sheer boredom, the timing of this grandiose Napoleonic reflection aligned with a much graver issue: Trump’s decision to halt a public corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.
Danielle Sassoon, once Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, claimed that the case was shelved because Adams’ legal team suggested a political exchange. Allegedly, if the Justice Department dropped the case, Adams’ administration would strongly back the President’s mass deportation agenda. Adding layers to this saga, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove contended that prosecuting Adams would hinder his governance in New York City, especially in tackling illegal immigration and violent crime — focal points of Trump’s mantra to “save America.”
Both Adams and Trump’s Justice Department have denied any such quid pro quo. Bove has even suggested that the investigation into Adams by Biden’s Justice Department was cooked up for political reasons, while Trump was merely righting a wrongful prosecution.
If these accusations hold water, it puzzles why Trump didn’t replace such “hacks” within his prosecutorial team. Simply put, they weren’t hacks.
Sassoon, whom Trump had appointed as interim U.S. attorney only weeks earlier, chose to resign rather than follow orders she found unethical. She wasn’t alone; six other prosecutors joined her exit, each aware of the intricate details and behind-the-scenes dealings. In her eloquent resignation letter spanning eight pages, Sassoon argued that wielding the threat of criminal prosecution as a political tool undermines justice. The Trump administration’s decision to merely pause the case against Adams suggests they intend to wield it as leverage over him, an act epitomizing the misuse of the justice system. Not to mention Bove’s threat to probe the resigning prosecutors for their principled stand.
This backdrop makes Trump’s assertion that a president can’t break the law if acting in the country’s best interest all the more telling. While it could be brushed off as a misjudged joke, given the context, it’s beginning to seem ominously like an admission.
@JonahDispatch
