Trumps latest prosecution claim demolished by one inconvenient fact

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House for Florida, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 20, 2026. REUTERS Nathan Howard

President Donald Trump has accused Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of threatening political prosecutions to discourage Americans from serving in government, but a new analysis points to one problem with his claim.

In The Atlantic on Wednesday, Jonathan Chait challenged Trump’s version of events at a University of Chicago gathering on October 13 with journalist Astead Herndon. There, Slotkin argued that she did not call for political prosecutions and that her argument was specific to Democrats pursuing corruption charges if they gain a majority in Congress in November.

“Slotkin said that there should be prosecutions in order to scare people from going into politics,” was how Trump put it to reporters outside the White House, also calling her a “lowlife” who is “ruining her state.”

Chait wrote that Slotkin was referring to congressional oversight, not criminal investigations. She laid out a scenario where the Democrats controlled Congress while the Republicans still ran the executive branch, which in fact limits what could be done via the Justice Department.

In her view, Democrats should focus on “signature cases” rather than a far-reaching investigation. “We do have to have accountability for the unbelievable corruption that we are living under right now,” she said.

Chait accused Republicans of failing to make that distinction in her proposal. Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee decried what he saw as threats to young Americans in public service, while former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer also piled on the criticism of Slotkin.

Conservatives framed her remarks as going after Republicans for what they believe rather than specific acts of corruption.

To Chait, the reaction shows how easily Republicans will stand with the president even when he faces accountability, even though some of them have voiced opposition to Trump in the past. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal accused Slotkin’s of a Biden-era attempt at political retribution that criminalizes political difference.

Chait denied that Biden behaved as the WSJ editorial suggests and dismissed the idea of tit-for-tat retribution as a “superficial appeal.”

He pointed to Biden’s appointment of Merrick Garland, who he says had bipartisan respect. He also argued that the former president only appointed Jack Smith when there was evidence of Trump’s refusal to cooperate. He acknowledged the Manhattan case was questionable, but said Biden wasn't responsible.

Herndon also noted that Trump has attempted to protect himself from accountability by stacking the courts and putting MAGA loyalists in the Republican Party.

They also argued that Slotkin point was that exposing the administration’s corruption might deter Republicans from joining the administration and continuing in the same vein.

Chait also called out Trump’s hypocrisy, noting that he called for Hillary Clinton to be locked up and pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden long before the criminal cases against him emerged.

From Your Site Articles