JOYCE VANCE

 

Justice According To Trump

Joyce Vance

Apr 18, 2026

The Justice Department has moved to drop the last remaining January 6 insurrection criminal matters: the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys seditious conspiracy cases. It’s a gratuitous move. On the first day of his second term, Trump issued full pardons to more than 1500 people who overran the Capitol on January 6. Then he commuted the sentences of 14 of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers defendants, the people convicted of the most serious January 6-related offense, seditious conspiracy. Getting clemency got them out of prison, but it didn’t erase their convictions.

So earlier this week, Trump’s U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, moved to vacate the convictions of prominent insurrectionists including Stewart Rhodes and Ethan Nordean. She wrote that doing so was “in the interests of justice.”

 

Here’s what that means: The government wants to pretend the indictments didn’t occur and juries never convicted these defendants on some of the most serious charges that can be leveled against people in a democracy. Vacating a conviction means it never happened.

Prosecutors need a judge’s permission to dismiss a case after it has been indicted. These cases are on appeal, and the government filed its request to vacate before the defendant/appellants’ first briefs are due. Pirro explained “The government respectfully requests that, before the defendants are required to file their opening brief, the Court vacate their convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 and remand so that the government may move to dismiss the indictment with prejudice.” A defendant’s conviction isn’t final until it has been affirmed on appeal, and these convictions haven’t been, so it’s still possible to do away with them. The government argues that judges “routinely” grant these types of motions.

One might hope that the judges here will inquire further into precisely how fulfilling the government’s requests serves “the interests of justice.” But rejecting them could easily result in mandamus orders from a higher court requiring the judges to do so. It’s likely Trump will get his way.

This is what Donald Trump does for his friends—the people willing to plot a violent insurrection in hopes he could hold onto power after losing the 2020 election. He treats the people he thinks of as enemies very differently, but the stench of corruption is the same.

The current example is former CIA Director John Brennan—one of the ultimate catches on Trump’s revenge prosecution list. Trump became convinced during his first term in office that Brennan had been involved in some shadowy plot against him, and although nothing in the extensive “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation carried out by then AG Bill Barr and Special Counsel John Durham bore that out, Trump apparently still holds a grudge. Trump has always been sensitive to the 2017 intelligence assessment that found ​Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in order to help him, and since Brennan was at the CIA when that happened, Trump seems to hold him responsible. The intelligence assessment appears to have been accurate; both the FBI and a bipartisan Senate Committee agreed.

Brennan is now the target of an investigation in the Southern District of Florida, which appears to be amping up, despite the fact that the career prosecutor who has been running that investigation had been resisting “pressure to quickly bring charges against the former CIA director and prominent critic of President Donald Trump,” according to CNN. She reportedly questioned the strength of the evidence and was subsequently removed from the case. She will be replaced by Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney during the Reagan administration. diGenova is one of the lawyers who helped with Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election.

CNN went on to report that the Justice Department said in a statement that it is a routine practice to move attorneys around on cases “so offices can most effectively allocate resources.” The statement continued, “It is completely healthy and normal to change members of legal teams.” That’s unlikely to fool anyone. It’s counterproductive and wasteful of time and deep knowledge about the evidence in a case to make a move like this, and it doesn’t happen in the absence of solid reason. Here, it appears to be happening, as we saw in the Eric Adam’s case in New York, and the cases involving Jim Comey and Letitia James in the Eastern District of Virginia, to remove an unwilling prosecutor and replace her with a more compliant one. We don’t yet know what the potential charges might look like here, and the government seems confident, with the matter proceeding in Judge Aileen Cannon’s district. But it’s hard to imagine there’s anything of substance here.

The polar opposite treatment of these two cases clarifies just how defunct the Justice Department is. During Trump’s first term in office and his bid for reelection, I repeatedly spoke of the danger he posed to our criminal justice system and hence to our democracy, the risk he would turn us into a banana republic where an authoritarian leader uses the criminal justice system to reward his friends and punish his enemies. And here we are. This is what the stakes are in the midterm elections. Because a president who is willing to do all of this—and has a party behind him that is willing to be complicit—will try to do whatever it takes to hold onto power. It’s a moment where no one can afford to stay on the sidelines.

This isn’t about one case or a handful of defendants. It’s about whether the rule of law still has meaning, whether Trump will succeed in eroding it into yet another political tool; applying it differently to people depending on who they are—and whose side they’re on. When a president can make convictions disappear for his allies while leaning on prosecutors to go after his critics, the damage isn’t just theoretical, it’s already happening in front of our eyes. And once that line is crossed, it doesn’t easily uncross itself. It’s on all of us to see it clearly and refuse to look away.

Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse and making it possible, through you subscriptions, for me to write the newsletter.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

HEATHER

 

April 18, 2026

Heather Cox Richardson

Apr 19, 2026

And, just like that, President Donald J. Trump’s triumphant boasting that the Strait of Hormuz had been permanently reopened has unraveled in less than 24 hours. Citing the continuing U.S. blockade, Iranian officials announced they were closing the strait again. Reports say Iranian forces fired on two ships trying to cross the strait. Iranian media said: “Until the United States ends its interference with the full freedom of movement for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the status of the Strait of Hormuz will remain under intense control and in its previous state.”

Susannah George of the Washington Post noted that the fragile temporary ceasefire between Israel and the government of Lebanon also appears to be cracking. Israel has been bombing southern Lebanon where Iran-backed Hezbollah militants operate, and Israel Defense Forces said Saturday that it believed Hezbollah had violated that ceasefire. It said: “IDF is authorized to take the necessary measures in self-defense against threats, while ensuring the security of Israeli civilians and the soldiers deployed in the area.”

This morning, Trump said Iran wanted “to close up the strait again, you know, as they’ve been doing for years, and they can’t blackmail us.” In fact, the strait was open until Trump began to bomb Iran on February 28. Trump’s choice of the word “blackmail” is interesting in this context, for there have been no public threats of exposing someone’s secrets or threatening harm to them in association with the crisis in Iran.

MeidasTouch reports that Iran says it has not agreed to further talks with the U.S. because of its pressure tactics and what it calls “unreasonable demands.”

The Institute for the Study of War assesses that Iranian political officials are not the ones controlling decision-making. Instead, it appears the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the primary force of the Iranian military, is in charge. Benoit Faucon of the Wall Street Journal writes that disagreements about what’s happening in the Strait of Hormuz suggest divisions in Iran’s leadership.

Rebecca F. Elliott of the New York Times reminds readers that even if the strait does open fully, it will take weeks for oil from the region to flow back into world markets. High oil prices will persist for weeks, at least, as producers wait to make sure stability has really returned before they ramp production back up on the 20% of facilities in the region that have not been damaged. The damage from Trump’s attack on Iran “has inflicted the kind of damage that takes months, if not years, to repair,” Elliott wrote. Energy research and investment firm partner Arjun Murti told Elliott: “We don’t expect oil prices—and therefore pump prices—to go back to prewar levels.”

Once again, Trump’s announcement of the opening of the strait seemed timed to give the markets a bounce before the weekend. Those watching the markets observed massive trades yesterday just before Trump’s announcement. Regulators are currently examining similar trades from one of Trump’s similar announcements last month.

Meanwhile, Shelby Holliday, Michael R. Gordon, and Costas Paris of the Wall Street Journal report that the U.S. military is “preparing…to board Iran-linked oil tankers and seize commercial ships in international waters” in an attempt to force Iran to reopen the strait and back away from its nuclear program. President Barack Obama’s team, along with China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom had achieved both of those goals with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Trump tore up in 2018.

The journalists report that, as part of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, the U.S. Navy has already forced twenty-three ships trying to leave Iranian ports to turn back. Now it intends to take control of vessels around the world that are linked to Iran. The administration is calling this phase of the U.S. war against Iran “Economic Fury.”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, said yesterday that the U.S. “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran. This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil. As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions or insurance requirements.”

On Wednesday the USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest aircraft carrier in the world, broke the record for the longest deployment of an aircraft carrier since the Vietnam War: 295 days. The vessel left its home port in June 2025 for the Mediterranean but was rerouted to the Caribbean as part of Trump’s buildup there. It took part in the capture of then–Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, then headed to the Middle East. A fire in one of its laundries left 600 sailors without berths, and it went to the Mediterranean for repairs.

Nahal Toosi of Politico wrote yesterday that, according to diplomatic cables she obtained from U.S. diplomats in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Indonesia, the Iran war is hurting U.S. interests abroad. The U.S. is losing the trust of the populations of those countries and possibly of their governments as well. Indonesia is the biggest Muslim-majority country in the world, with more than 287 million people, and under President Joe Biden the U.S. had been working to strengthen ties with it.

Trump’s erratic behavior has caught the attention of the New York Times, where on April 13 Peter Baker wrote that the president’s threat that “a whole civilization will die tonight,” along with his attacks on Pope Leo XIV, “have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.” Baker noted that retired generals, diplomats, foreign officials, and even Trump’s former allies on the right are all expressing concern.

Yesterday Steve Hendrix and Stefano Pitrelli of the Washington Post reported that Trump’s erratic behavior is alienating even those right-wing populists in Europe who hailed his reelection in the belief that it would strengthen their own hand. The authors say that Trump’s high tariffs, demands for Greenland, and surprise attack on Iran had already put right-wing leaders in an awkward position. For some of them, his portrayal of himself as Jesus on Orthodox Easter and his attacks on the pope are a bridge too far.

In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Catholic, said Trump’s attack on the Pope is “unacceptable.” In turn, Trump attacked Meloni, saying: “She doesn’t want to help us with NATO, she doesn’t want to help us get rid of nuclear weapons. She’s very different from what I thought. She’s no longer the same person, and Italy won’t be the same country.”

Supporting Trump appears to be a losing proposition in Europe, where last summer Europeans thought Trump was only slightly less dangerous to peace and security in Europe than Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. In March a YouGov poll showed Trump with unfavorability ratings of 78% in France, 86% in Germany, and 80% in Italy.

On Wednesday, April 15, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. would not renew the sanctions waivers that had permitted the sale of Russian oil. Yesterday the administration reversed that, renewing the waiver that allows countries to buy Russian oil and petroleum products loaded through May 16. The sale of oil provides a financial lifeline for Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Last night in Kansas, former secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg, who is speaking across the country in support of Democratic candidates, explained to an audience why he is working so hard to restore American democracy. He said: “[W]hen you have one of those long nights, when you’re asking yourself, can I really do any more that I’ve already done? I want you to reach into whatever is your personal why.

“For me, the reason I make sure to hit the road and be with you on a night like this is actually, ironically, the very same thing that makes it a little bit harder than it used to be. When I woke up this morning before I headed to the airport, about 6:30 this morning, as usually happens, my first interaction was with a four-year-old boy. And I’m putting out the cereal for him and his sister. And he says, ‘Papa, can I come with you? On this trip?’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t think it’ll work out. I gotta go to Kansas. You gotta go to preschool, and…’ And then he walks up to me with, um, a Sonic the Hedgehog walkie-talkie. He tells me to put it in my briefcase. He says, ‘Take this with you. That way we can talk to each other.’

“I wasn’t sure whether I should explain how range works on walkie-talkies or not. Just gave him a big hug instead. But what I know is that it won’t be so long before he and his sister, who right now are asking me questions I can handle—like, the other day, I got: ‘Papa is a grapefruit bigger than a pineapple?’ I can handle that. But,what am I gonna do when they say, ‘Papa, back in the 2020s, did you do enough?’

“They’re gonna ask that, and I want to make sure we have a very good answer by the time they’re old enough to ask that question.”

—

 

The Slow Surrender to Unreality The Pesky Liberals Apr 19 The most revealing moments in a political movement are often not the grand speeches or choreographed ceremonies, but the smaller ruptures that expose what power looks like when it begins to detach from reality. Sometimes it is a half-empty arena where a vice president speaks to rows of vacant seats that no amount of camera framing can conceal. Sometimes it is a president posting frantically in all caps about victory while foreign officials publicly accuse him of fabricating the terms of the very negotiations he claims to control. Sometimes it is the spectacle of a governing class so consumed by mythology that it can no longer distinguish between dominance and humiliation, between propaganda and truth, between performance and consequence. That rupture came into sharper focus when Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf directly challenged Donald Trump’s increasingly erratic declarations about the Strait of Hormuz. In a series of pointed statements, Ghalibaf dismissed Trump’s flood of triumphant posts as fiction, insisting that the United States had not imposed the terms of peace and that the realities of regional power would not be dictated through social media. His message was blunt: passage through the waterway would occur on routes designated by Iran and under Iranian authorization. In a single statement, he stripped away the theatrical language of American victory and replaced it with the harder truth of geopolitical leverage. Trump had spent days presenting himself as the man who had restored order to a global crisis he helped ignite. Iranian officials responded by making clear that Washington had not seized control of the strait at all. Tehran still held the gate. That distinction matters because the battle now unfolding is no longer simply military. It is epistemic. It is a struggle over who gets to define reality itself. Modern authoritarian movements increasingly depend on creating a closed system of meaning in which the leader’s words become more important than observable events. The mechanism is familiar to historians of political cults and high-control movements alike. The leader speaks. Followers repeat. Contradictions are dismissed. Failures are reframed as victories. Humiliation is transformed into strength through sheer repetition. It is not persuasion in the traditional sense. It is psychological enclosure. Trump’s social media barrage declaring the “Strait of Iran” open illustrated that mechanism perfectly. A crisis that had destabilized global shipping lanes, rattled oil markets, strained alliances, and pushed the world toward a wider regional war was recast as a personal triumph. The same strait that had been open before the conflict was now presented as if it had been heroically liberated by the very man whose decisions had helped endanger it. The pattern has become almost ritualistic. A problem is created. Damage spreads outward. The same damage is then rebranded as evidence of strength. Reality becomes subordinate to narrative. What makes this especially dangerous is that the performance increasingly collides with the institutions meant to restrain it. Trump’s declaration that he would personally “prohibit” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from bombing Lebanon revealed more than another abrupt foreign policy reversal. It showed a presidency that has come to treat international diplomacy as an extension of personal authority. Alliances are no longer framed as mutual commitments between nations but as relationships of obedience between men. Foreign leaders become subordinate characters in a story whose central purpose is to reinforce the image of the indispensable leader. Policy becomes theater. The world becomes a stage on which one man attempts to prove he alone can command events. But the deeper instability is not confined to foreign policy. It is also visible in the way millions of people have been conditioned to absorb contradiction without consequence. For years, experts in coercive persuasion have identified a recurring pattern in movements that begin to resemble cultic systems. The leader is always right. Criticism becomes persecution. Any failure is blamed on enemies. Outsiders are depicted as corrupt. Followers are encouraged to reject independent sources of information. The movement becomes not simply political, but existential. To question the leader is to threaten the believer’s sense of identity. The transformation of Trump into a mythic figure has accelerated this process. AI-generated images depicting him as a warrior, a savior, a king, even a Christ-like figure, are not random internet absurdities. They are devotional artifacts. They serve the same psychological function that sacred iconography has served in authoritarian movements for generations. They elevate the leader beyond accountability by turning him into a symbol. Symbols cannot fail. Symbols cannot lie. Symbols can only be betrayed. That symbolic transformation explains why ordinary political scandals increasingly fail to produce ordinary political consequences. A presidency engulfed in legal controversy, war, economic disruption, and open corruption no longer triggers the normal civic reflexes that once protected democratic systems. Instead, each new rupture is metabolized into the mythology. Investigations become witch hunts. Contradictions become evidence of genius. Chaos becomes proof that the leader is battling hidden enemies on behalf of his followers. The movement survives not despite instability, but because instability itself becomes the emotional fuel that keeps the movement alive. That same dynamic can be seen in the strange coexistence of governmental dysfunction and ideological radicalization. Even as foreign crises deepen, domestic institutions continue eroding in quieter ways. Reports that Justice Samuel Alitois not stepping down this term may seem procedural on the surface, but they underscore a broader reality: the architecture of long-term power remains intact even while the daily spectacle dominates public attention. The machinery of influence often advances most effectively when the public is too overwhelmed to notice it moving. At the same time, figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continue to embody another facet of this cultural decay: the normalization of grotesque behavior through media spectacle. In a healthier political environment, deeply disturbing stories about public officials would provoke moral seriousness. Instead, they become part of the endless churn of outrage, briefly shocking before disappearing beneath the next wave of absurdity. That, too, serves power. A population exhausted by constant chaos becomes easier to govern because outrage loses its staying power. Citizens stop reacting not because the behavior becomes acceptable, but because the system has trained them to believe nothing can be done. And beneath all of this lies the deeper structural truth that often goes unspoken: many of these crises are inseparable from the economic systems that sustain them. The dependence on fossil fuel empires, petrostate alliances, and militarized resource politics has helped create a world where war and energy remain inseparably linked. The struggle over the Strait of Hormuz is not just about a narrow waterway. It is about a global order that has repeatedly allowed a handful of actors to hold entire populations hostage through energy dependence. Every delayed transition, every compromised climate policy, every strategic accommodation with authoritarian oil wealth has compounded that vulnerability. The cost is measured not only in inflation or markets, but in blood. That is why the current moment feels larger than one man, even as one man dominates the image of it. Trump is not the sole cause of what is happening. He is the expression of a political culture that spent decades hollowing out its own democratic immune system. He is what emerges when spectacle replaces civic literacy, when grievance replaces governance, when institutions become too timid to defend themselves, and when mythology becomes more emotionally satisfying than truth. The real danger is not simply that a leader lies. Democracies have survived liars before. The danger is when enough people decide that truth itself no longer matters. Because once a society accepts that power can invent reality as it goes, every crisis becomes easier to manipulate, every institution becomes easier to bend, and every future abuse becomes easier to justify. That is how decline often looks in real time. Not as a single collapse, but as a slow surrender to unreality. A half-empty arena presented as a triumph. A strategic defeat described as dominance. A man remade into a symbol. A public taught to doubt its own eyes. And history shows that once a political movement begins demanding faith instead of judgment, the consequences rarely remain confined to rhetoric for long. The Pesky Liberals is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell The Pesky Liberals that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. Pledge your support   Share     Like Comment Restack   © 2026 The Pesky Liberals 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe