Trump attacks Jeff Sessions over House Republicans indicted for financial crimes

President Trump has found yet another reason to be mad at Jeff Sessions: He thinks the attorney general shouldn’t have indicted Reps. Chris Collins (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) because it might hurt Republicans’ chances in the 2018 midterms.

On Monday, Trump blasted Sessions on Twitter over charges brought against Collins and Hunter last month. Collins was charged with insider trading and Hunter with using campaigns funds for personal use. Both were among the first members of Congress to endorse Trump in the 2016 election.

“Two long running, Obama era investigations of two very popular Republican Congressman were brought to a well-publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department,” Trump tweeted on Monday. “Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff.”

In a subsequent tweet, he quipped that the Democrats “must love [Sessions] now.”

The tweets sparked immediate turmoil because they suggested that Trump would prefer the Justice Department put off acting on alleged crimes in the name of political expediency and election wins. For the DOJ to do so would raise serious ethics questions.

It is Justice Department custom for prosecutors to avoid public disclosure of investigative steps that could impact elections or indictments within 60 days of an election. But that’s a norm, not a law (then-FBI Director James Comey didn’t abide by it when he sent a letter to Congress days ahead of the 2016 election about Hillary Clinton’s emails). And the charges against Collins and Hunter were brought well outside of that 60-day window.

Trump also seems to be fudging the timeline on the Collins investigation by implying it was an Obama-era matter only. The charges against him center on calls he made to his son Cameron Collins to give him information about the Australian biotech company Innate Immunotherapeutic in the summer of 2017, months after Trump took office. Preet Bharara, a former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired in March 2017, tweeted that Collins “was not an Obama era investigation” on Monday.

It’s not clear when the investigation into Hunter began. The Los Angeles Times reported an FBI probe into his use of campaign funds in March 2017.

Trump’s tweets are a big deal. Who knows if Republicans will actually do anything about it?

Trump is already under scrutiny for potential obstruction of justice in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and his Monday tweets probably won’t help the impression that the president sees the Department of Justice as a political tool instead of an apolitical entity. Both Democrats and Republicans expressed alarm at Trump’s tweet, but whether there will be any consequences is unclear.

“Elections are coming is not a legitimate legal defense,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) tweeted.

AshLee Strong, a spokesperson for House Speaker Paul Ryan, told CNN that the Justice Department “should always remain apolitical, and the speaker has demonstrated he takes these charges [against Collins and Hunter] seriously.”

A senior Justice Department official told Axios the tweet was “concerning” and shows the president things the DOJ should be used “as a weapon against enemies and a tool to win elections.”

“The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement, adding that the job of the president is “to defend the Constitution and protect the impartial administration of justice.”

Retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said this was the president looking to use the Justice Department “to settle political scores.” On Tuesday, Flake said he would address Trump’s tweets on the Senate floor later in the day.

Despite the bipartisan pushback, it’s unclear what consequences — if any — there will be for Trump. Republicans in Congress have demonstrated a continued reticence to rebuke the president, and it’s unlikely his Labor Day tweets will change that.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via