Former President Donald Trump's consistent threats to prosecute his
perceived enemies � most recently this past weekend � are concerning to
many legal and democracy experts, who say Trump's own history shows he
could make good on those promises in a second presidential term.

On Saturday, the Republican presidential nominee alleged on Truth Social
that there was "rampant Cheating and Skullduggery" in the 2020
presidential election, despite numerous recounts and audits disproving his
claims that he only appeared to have lost because of voter fraud. Trump
then brought those baseless fraud claims to bear on the 2024 election,
saying various groups � including lawyers and "Corrupt Election Officials"
� should beware that after he wins the 2024 election, "those people that
CHEATED will be prosecuted."

The threat comes just a couple weeks after Trump circulated Truth Social
posts calling for military tribunals against former President Barack Obama
and for indicting the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021
attack on the Capitol. He shared with his followers another user's post
depicting rivals in jumpsuits, including President Joe Biden, Vice
President Kamala Harris, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Richard Painter, who was a White House ethics lawyer for President George
W. Bush, likened the comments to a vision of President Vladimir Putin's
Russia, where Putin's political opponents end up behind bars on charges
such as "extremism" or "treason" after criticizing his regime.

"It's extremely dangerous for democracy, this idea that the winner just
puts the loser in prison, prosecutes the loser," Painter told USA TODAY.

Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told USA TODAY in
an email that Trump "believes anyone who breaks the law should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including criminals who
engage in election fraud."

"Without free and fair elections, you can't have a country. Ask
Venezuela," Leavitt said.

The former president has previously suggested prosecuting his rivals would
be legitimate revenge for his own legal troubles, which include one
criminal conviction in New York state court and three other criminal
cases.

Painter said that argument ignores some stark differences between Trump's
own situation and what he is threatening to do.

"Joe Biden never campaigned on a promise to put Donald Trump in prison,"
Painter said. "When Donald Trump engaged in the conduct he did, an
independent prosecutor was appointed," he added, referring to special
counsel Jack Smith, who has significant independence from Justice
Department leadership and secured grand jury indictments in the two
federal cases Trump faces, one alleging Trump unlawfully attempted to
subvert the 2020 election and the other alleging he mishandled classified
documents.

Trump has previously tried to prosecute his rivals
Robert Gordon, a Stanford law professor, said even though Trump is "given
to bluff and bluster," there is good reason to believe he means it when he
says he will use the legal system to get revenge. Gordon noted that Trump
tried to get the FBI and Justice Department to investigate and prosecute
rivals during his first term. That broke with post-Watergate norms for
keeping law enforcement investigations independent from the White House.

For instance, according to the Mueller report, Trump's first attorney
general, Jeff Sessions, told federal prosecutors Trump asked him to
reverse his decision to recuse himself from presidential campaign-related
investigations and direct the Justice Department to investigate and
prosecute Hillary Clinton around the summer of 2017.

In the spring of 2018, Trump also told White House counsel Donald F.
McGahn II he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute both
Hillary Clinton and James Comey, the former FBI director whom Trump had
already fired during an investigation into Russian interference to help
Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, according to the New York
Times. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo warning Trump that if
he ordered law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could be
impeached.

After the March, 2019 release of the Mueller report, which looked at
Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump also called for federal
officials to "investigate the investigators." Bill Barr, Trump's chosen
attorney general after Sessions, later appointed special counsel John
Durham to do just that.

"He made clear his position that as head of the executive branch, he has
both the power and right to direct federal criminal justice enforcement at
any targets he chooses; and does not respect the 'independence' of the
Attorney General and of US Attorneys," Gordon told USA TODAY in an email.

Why Trump could succeed next time
Amanda Carpenter, a former staffer to Republican Sens. Jim DeMint and Ted
Cruz, who now works for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit, told
USA TODAY it will be easier for Trump to get underlings to go through with
a prosecution - even without strong evidence - because checks on the
president's power will be weaker.

"The prosecution he's threatening against people who challenge his
authority is based on smears, conspiracies, and lies, and that is why,
when he has gone to court for those election lies in the aftermath of the
2020 election, his claims are rejected again and again," she said,
referring to Trump's more than 60 failed election-related lawsuits.

More: Fact check: Donald Trump received dozens of hearings on his 2020
election claims

Carpenter noted plans from Trump allies to erode Justice Department
independence along with the Supreme Court's July 1 presidential immunity
decision and the dwindling number of congressional Republicans who
supported Trump's Jan. 6-related impeachment.

"Trump and his allies have spent their time out of office creating plans
to systematically gut the checks and balances that stopped him from
excessive law breaking in his first term," Carpenter said.

Defending Trump's call to prosecute rivals
At least one prominent law professor has come out in support of using the
justice system for retaliation, saying Trump shouldn't have been charged
with crimes and revenge prosecutions are the way to fix it.

University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo, a former
Justice Department lawyer and prominent conservative, argued in National
Review in May that the prosecutions against Trump threaten the ability of
future presidents to act in emergencies because they will fear getting
prosecuted for their conduct. Those responsible for Trump's criminal cases
will only learn their lesson, Yoo said, if Trump's rivals also get
prosecuted.

"Without the threat of prosecution of their own leaders, Democrats will
continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint," Yoo
wrote.

In an email to USA TODAY, Yoo said he doesn't take Trump's posts
seriously. On the post about military tribunals for Obama, he said such
tribunals don't have the power to try American officials. The photos of
Democrats in prison jumpsuits seemed to him "to be a joke."

"What I argued in my piece, and I continue to believe, is that Democratic
district attorneys are prosecuting Trump and his campaign officials under
contrived state criminal charges for their conduct in a federal election,"
he wrote. "If Democrats, however continue to interfere with federal
candidates like Trump and their campaigns, then they are opening the door
for Republican DAs to do the same."

Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, said arguments that
Trump should sic prosecutors on his rivals as vengeance - that "what's
good for the goose is good for the gander," as the saying goes - ignore
the question of who has actually committed a major crime.

"If the goose committed a serious crime, he deserves to be in prison, and
if the gander didn't, then she doesn't," he told USA TODAY. "Trump
committed serious crimes by trying to overturn the 2020 election by force
and fraud."

What crimes does Trump claim his rivals committed?
Trump and the memes he reposted did not specify what crimes his nemeses
allegedly committed, except in the case of the Jan. 6 Committee, which he
accused of "sedition."

"Seditious conspiracy" is a federal crime, involving conspiring to attack
or harm the U.S. government through various potential avenues, such as
trying to overthrow or wage war against it. Trump didn't clarify how he
believes the committee, which investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the
Capitol under House investigatory powers, committed that crime.

When it comes to prosecutions ordered by Trump, Somin doesn't expect that
courts or juries would accept criminal charges merely based on someone
having opposed Trump on some issue, but said even being investigated or
charged would be a significant burden for those targeted.