Judges Say Trump’s Attacks Are Fueling Threats To Their Safety

SAN DIEGO — A trio of federal judges on Thursday offered a blistering assessment of the Trump administration’s attacks on the judiciary, with one comparing them to the behavior of authoritarian regimes.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a senior judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said she is particularly troubled by calls to impeach judges for their rulings — a punishment that President Donald Trump and some members of Congress have suggested.

“When I read that, I think, what is this? Is this Turkey? Is this Tunisia? Is this Hungary? Is this Poland?” said McKeown, speaking at an American Bar Association conference on white-collar crime. “No, it's the United States where these impeachment calls are coming out,” she said, adding that the tactic is “a pure political play, but I think it's a dangerous one.”

McKeown, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also skewered “top executives” in the administration for undermining public confidence in the courts.

“We have seen the criticism, the rhetoric, the personal attacks to the degree that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “I think it affects the public trust in the courts … and to me, the public trust in the judiciary is what has distinguished the American system and that is really what is being put at risk.”

“I think lawyers from all sides are being careful,” she added. “And, you know, they're entitled to a certain amount of rhetoric in the courtroom. But when it comes from top executives, when it comes from Congress, and then when it is magnified on the internet, we are in an era that we’ve never been in.”

The panel of judges, which also included U.S. District Judges André Birotte Jr., of the Central District of California, and Richard F. Boulware II, of the District of Nevada, said they were heartened by recent examples of grand juries declining to indict in politically charged prosecutions Trump has demanded, including in a case against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“In some ways … one might say the process is working,” Birotte, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said. “We all know the adage: A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, blah, blah, blah. But maybe not. And that’s a good thing.”

Boulware, also an Obama appointee, warned of the rise of threats against judges, saying he testified last week at the sentencing of a woman convicted of cyber-stalking him and his family. He also disclosed that hours after he spoke out about threats at a prior year’s conference, an unsolicited pizza delivery arrived at his home — an intimidation tactic that is used to indicate the sender knows the recipient’s address.

Without naming the Trump administration, all three judges suggested its heated rhetoric has contributed to increased threats.

“Don’t like our opinion, fine. Not only can you appeal the opinion, but you can publicly criticize, and there’s really nothing with that, no matter whether it’s somebody in the government or a private individual,” McKeown said.

“But I think when it rises to the level of a threat, and when we see the burden and the impact of the threat … it’s the old, sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm you – that’s not really true right now. Words have been really used as a weapon against the judiciary.”