An investigation into the machinery of Donald Trump's second administration reveals how a core group of advisors—Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Susie Wiles, Dan Scavino, Karoline Leavitt, James Blair, and Vince Haley—are translating presidential authority into concrete policy through immigration enforcement, military operations, personnel control, and institutional reorganization. Miller's documented influence has produced more than 200 executive orders targeting immigration, while Hegseth faces bipartisan congressional scrutiny over a Pentagon Inspector General report finding he violated protocols by sharing classified information on Signal and over controversial Caribbean military strikes. Scavino now controls "almost all positions in government" through the Presidential Personnel Office. This examination of Trump's first eleven months back in office documents how loyalty-based staffing, agency reorganizations, and centralized decision-making are reshaping federal institutions in ways that may outlast this administration.
Tag: executive power
The Comey Pattern: Examining Extraordinary Prosecutorial Actions Against Prominent Women
When James Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart in 2003 using what legal scholars called an "audacious legal theory," and when he made unprecedented public interventions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation in 2016, he claimed to be upholding institutional integrity. But a comprehensive examination of court records, Inspector General reports, and expert analysis reveals a troubling pattern: Comey's most aggressive and procedurally irregular actions have disproportionately targeted high-profile women, generating enormous reputational damage regardless of legal outcomes. From the novel securities fraud charge against Stewart—later dismissed by a judge—to the "extraordinary and insubordinate" press conferences and letters about Clinton that violated Justice Department norms, Comey's decisions in these cases drew sustained criticism from legal experts across the political spectrum. The Department of Justice Inspector General found that Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation included "inappropriate commentary about uncharged conduct" and represented departures from "well-established department policies" for which he offered no "persuasive basis." This investigation examines whether Comey's most controversial prosecutorial decisions reveal a pattern of disproportionate intensity, extraordinary publicity, and institutional norm violations that consistently affected prominent women—raising fundamental questions about equality before the law and the appropriate use of prosecutorial discretion.