As Jack Smith exits, Donald Trump’s allies hint at retribution

In the endDJDJDJCVMAGADJ Jack Smith jumped before he could be pushed. On November 25th the special counsel who spent two years dropped the two federal indictments against him. The Department of Justice (o) forbids prosecuting sitting presidents, so this was a question of when, not if. Mr Smith will file a report about his futile endeavour before packing his things. The alternative was a stand-off with Mr Trump, who had promised to fire him “within two seconds” of his inauguration. The two criminal cases against Mr Trump in state court, in Georgia and New York, are in effect over, too.The Trump trials’ unceremonious end highlights the of the judicial system to hold him to account for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and other alleged misdeeds. If anything, the cases fuelled his political comeback, adding grist to his victimisation narrative and rallying Republicans to his cause. Arguably their most profound effect was to make it immensely more difficult to prosecute Mr Trump or his successors in future. In July, in , the Supreme Court , or the presumption of it, to all sorts of presidential conduct.Over the past two years it became an article of faith among Republicans that the legal system was weaponised against Mr Trump; now many want payback. This understanding of the law as a form of politics is manifest in Mr Trump’s legal appointments—together they resemble a personal-defence bar. Pam Bondi, his nominee for attorney-general, represented him during his first impeachment trial in Congress. If all are confirmed, her deputies at the o will be two lawyers who defended Mr Trump during his hush-money trial. His choice for solicitor-general argued the immunity case before the Supreme Court.Unlike Matt Gaetz, who withdrew from contention to lead the o amid scandal, Ms Bondi should have no trouble getting confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate. She has the requisite as a former attorney-general of Florida, where she was part of a class of activist state prosecutors who took the Obama administration to court. Later she proved her credentials as a telegenic and tireless promoter of Mr Trump’s false claims about election fraud. She was reportedly nixed for a job in the first Trump administration over an ethics issue—in 2013 she declined to join a civil lawsuit against one of Mr Trump’s companies after he donated to her political campaign. That reflects how standards have shifted this time round.Now comes the wait to see if Mr Trump will follow through on his promise to seek retribution against his political opponents, and how accommodating Ms Bondi and others will be of such demands. Last year she told an interviewer on Fox News that “the prosecutors will be prosecuted—the bad ones”. She has called Mr Smith a “rabid dog”. (Dogs are a preoccupation for Ms Bondi, who once got into a custody dispute over a St Bernard.)Politically motivated prosecutions would shred the post-Watergate rule that presidents stay out of the o’s business. Already this norm was tested during Mr Trump’s first go in office, when federal prosecutors investigated both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, seemingly at the president’s request. Of course judges can toss spurious cases and juries can acquit defendants. But nothing constrains a president from opening a probe in the first place. The Supreme Court said as much in . “Allegations that...requested investigations [are] ‘shams’”, wrote the justices, “do not divest the president of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department”.