Members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have warned America for three years to take former President Donald Trump at his word.
Now, as Trump is poised to win the Republican presidential nomination, his criminal trials face delays that could stall them past Election Day, and his rhetoric grows increasingly authoritarian, some of those lawmakers find themselves following their own advice.
In mid-March, Trump said on social media that the committee members should be jailed. In December he vowed to be a dictator on “day one.” In August, he said he would “have no choice” but to lock up his political opponents.
“If he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, I guess I would be on that list,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose). “One thing I did learn on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what Trump says, because he means it.”
Lofgren added that she doesn’t yet have a plan in place to thwart potential retribution by Trump. But Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who has long been a burr in Trump’s side, said he’s having “real-time conversations” with his staff about how to make sure he stays safe if Trump follows through on his threats.
“We’re taking this seriously, because we have to,” Schiff said. “We’ve seen this movie before … and how perilous it is to ignore what someone is saying when they say they want to be a dictator.”
Trump himself isn’t going to do anything.
Who would be the ones arresting them.
It boggles my mind that anyone would listen to anything that fat fucking twatburger says.
And yet...
He doesn't need anyone to arrest his opponents. He just needs the fervent MAGA base to be whipped up into a frenzy like on Jan 6th. To be so angry if no LEO arrests Trump's opponents that they go out kill them, because hey it's totally cool now because Trump's a dictator.
He'll probably offer pardons to anyone willing to kill his opponents.
That's kind of how the whole thing could/should fall apart. "Authority" gives a command and someone down the chain has to enact it, if that person or persons above the chain refused to act - there would be conflict, but hopefully the opportunity for realization that authority gave an objectionable command. The cynical take is that any number of enthusiastic appeasers would enact the command to engratiate themselves to the authority in the system, defeating the message of the refusal.
Unfortunately, much of American machismo includes stepping on others to get a better view, or to be viewed more prominently by favored authority. So to answer your question, there's probably a dishearteningly large pool of people who would jump at the tasks Trump would dictate.
If he wins it will be the loyalist puppets who he installs in the DOJ and other top positions in law enforcement and the courts. This is one of his campaign promises.
federal officers directed by his attorney general
Random federal agents like when Trump's admin sent a bunch of anonymous feds against protestors to stir shit up and make secret arrests
The FBI, DHS, ATF, or similar member of the alphabet army. The POTUS has a lot of minions with the authority to arrest you.
Which was the one shoving people into unmarked vans in 2020, DHS? That's the one it will be, I'd put money on it.
I don't think we ever got a real answer on that one, since the vans and the agents were unmarked. So just straight-up kidnapping.
Can the president simply order them to arrest people for no good reason?
Last time I checked, the alphabet agencies weren't Trump's "minions", and they actually didn't like him very much.
Yes. Just like you can. It's not hard to give an order.
If you want to know whether or not the agency will listen and obey... that's a whole other question and gets into dangerous territory when we know the POTUS loves being a dictator.
Then you checked wrong. The POTUS is the head of the executive and the alphabet agencies are within said executive. POTUS is at the top.of their food chain, same as the military. As I said, though, it can get arbitrarily nuanced when you ask if a given agent will obey an illegal order or not.