Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department

by Carol Leonnig, Aaron C. Davis

An Instant New York Times Bestseller

“An amazing piece of work . . . This is not just a series of newly reported anecdotes and pieces of information. It is a remarkable thesis about how Trump effectively broke the Justice Department in his first term by bullying it.” —Rachel Maddow, The Rachel Maddow Show

From Pulitzer Prize–winning Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis, a shocking investigation of unparalleled depth into the subversion of the Justice Department over the last decade, culminating in President Donald Trump upending this cornerstone of democracy and threatening America’s rule of law as we have long known it

Throughout his first administration, Trump did more than any other president to politicize the nation’s top law enforcement agency, pressuring appointees to shield him, to target his enemies, and even to help him cling to power after his 2020 election defeat. The department, pressed into a defensive crouch, has never fully recovered.

Injustice exposes not only the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the department at every turn but also how delays in investigating Trump’s effort to overturn the will of voters under Attorney General Merrick Garland helped prevent the country from holding Trump accountable and enabled his return to power. With never-before-told accounts, Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis take readers inside as prosecutors convulsed over Trump’s disdain for the rule of law, and FBI agents, the department’s storied investigators, at times retreated in fear. They take you to the rooms where Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team set off on an all-but-impossible race to investigate Trump for absconding with classified documents and waging an assault on democracy—and inside his prosecution’s heroic and fateful choices that ultimately backfired.

With a plethora of sources deeply embedded in the ranks of three presidencies, Leonnig and Davis reveal the daily war secretly waged for the soul of the department, how it has been shredded by propaganda and partisanship, and how—if the United States hopes to live on with its same form of government—Trump’s war with the Justice Department will mark a turning point from which it will be hard to recover. Injustice is the jaw-dropping account of partisans and enablers undoing democracy, heroes still battling to preserve a nation governed by laws, and a call to action for those who believe in liberty and justice for all.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook, Law, American History, Justice

Audible Audio

Published November 4, 2025

About the author

Carol Duhurst Leonnig is an American investigative journalist and a longtime staff writer for The Washington Post. She was part of a team of national security reporters that won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2014 for reporting that revealed the NSA's expanded spying on Americans. She later received Pulitzers for National Reporting in 2015 and 2018. She is a member of the '87 class at Bryn Mawr College

Reviews

[Faith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not many of the basic facts in here were new to me, however the author did go into exhaustive detail about the procedures of the Department of Justice (which needs to be renamed). Frankly, for the most part the DOJ and FBI seem to have done a good job. Of course there were a few mistakes (like not getting rid of the corrupt Florida judge) and the slowness of the process was a definite detriment.

It isn’t until the last third of the book that we really see the devastation of our system of justice. There are still some judges in the lower courts who believe in the Constitution and rule of law. However, I find it hard to believe that the new appointees on the Supreme Court and the new hires in the DOJ had any legal training at all, certainly not in Constutional law or legal ethics. People with experience and integrity were purged. It will be impossible to get any qualified people to apply for those jobs, maybe ever again. A lot of this book opened old wounds. It is all very tragic, infuriating and embarrassing.

[Jeremy Neely]

“If it was anybody else, we would arrest him tomorrow.”

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this largely on the strength of two other recent Leonnig books, 'A Very Stable Genius' (which she co-wrote) and 'Zero Fail' (which she wrote by herself). 

Because of the writing style, the first book managed to find an angle of reporting that illuminated T---- terror in a way that seemed fresh (esp. for those well-versed from following political coverage). The second book was different, in that the Secret Service is not an outfit that gets much media coverage (why would it?; it's *secret*). So I actually learned more from the second book. 

'Injustice' (another co-write for Leonnig) revealed (for me, personally) the least amount of the three books. ~ which is not to say it's an inferior work. It maintains a high standard of reporting - but it covers a lot of ground that had already made its way through general reporting. 

That said, even the best of independent reporting (and it's out there if you look for it) can't cover everything (there's never enough time to unravel the sheer amount of destruction, esp. in more recent days) - and 'Injustice', as well as being an official document of its focus for the record, is admirable for the welcome nuance of its details. 

The book becomes most effective (and more eye-opening) in its final chapters (about the last quarter of the book). Whereas 'It' managed to hurt the DOJ less the first time around (but see also Peter Strzok's compelling personal account, 'Compromised'), 'its' current 'revenge tour' is a different matter. The way that Leonnig and co-author Aaron C. Davis lay out the countless specifics of how the DOJ has largely been - from Day One - swept clean of all but T---- loyalists is a heartbreaking display of just how vulnerable our democracy is. It seems there can never be too many guardrails (and there aren't nearly enough 'bulletproof' ones) when it comes to what amounts to a coup. 

The stories here of those who you're not likely to know of (or much of) seem to reflect a reality that 'there are more of us than there are of them' and that the days of the arrogant, narcissistic sociopaths are numbered.

Unfortunately (because of my work), I spend a grossly inordinate amount of time focused on what happens in government. I imagine that many people don't because following it can be overwhelming and frustrating. Way too many books have been published about this current administration and its deranged 'leader'. I'm selective about the actual books I read because I'm already mired in news coverage. But I try to find the ones that expose urgent info that I wouldn't otherwise happen upon elsewhere. 

'Injustice' manages to justify its inclusion in that group.

[Julie · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 Clearly deeply sourced, this is compelling investigative journalism with the pacing of narrative non-fiction. Carol Leonnig always delivers - her writing is just on another level compared to other journalists I’ve read.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellently written. I followed these events in real time, but they were shards. This book puts all the events into context with each other, creating a clear window through which to watch the unfolding of MAGA lawlessness. Highly recommend.

[Audrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent read. There's been so much going on, that it's often to focus on a single thread amongst all the chaos. Here, the authors do a fantastic job analyzing what's been going on at DOJ, starting with Trump 1, then the paralysis under Biden, and a bit into Trump 2. And it's clear that the people who work(ed) for DOJ, are brilliant lawyers, who believe in the mission, although sometimes under idealized circumstances. Given the amount of talent that has left (willingly or not), and (hopefully temporary) cancellation of the honors program, it will take years for DOJ to build back talent as well as trust within the legal system. SMH.

[Colleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read a lot on the current state of the United States but few books have scared me this deeply. The knowledge of how corrupted our judicial system is and how unequal to the task of defending it some of the people we put our highest hopes in (ie Robert Mueller, Merrick Garland) is so distressing, I lost sleep over it. I try to stay hopeful (and the daily dose of historical perspective from Heather Cox Richardson helps) but I truly don’t know how we can emerge from this. The shining beacon on the hill is snuffed out, likely forever.

[Gloria L. Barnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written book but reality is very sad. AG Garland delayed investigating the higher ups who planned J6 until forced to start investigating after the house J6 investigation evidence made it obvious. He didn’t want to appear political in any way so he delayed justice.
The classified document case against the former president was also delayed. They waited over a year, trying to get the documents back from him voluntarily before deciding to obtain a search warrant. Cameras at Mar-a-Lago showed documents being moved around right before his own lawyers were coming to pick up documents and some boxes were even put on his plane to take elsewhere before the search.
Jack Smith making the decision to try the document case in Florida and then unfortunately the case being assigned to Judge Cannon was a death knell for the case. Judge Cannon did everything she could to delay the case as did the Supreme Court and Cannon then found questionable reasons to dismiss the case. Jack Smith appealed it, but once Trump became president again, all cases against him were null and void.
His first day in office, he pardoned all the J6 participants. Within weeks, he had fired most of the FBI agents and DOJ lawyers involved in any of his court cases or in J6 investigations.
DOJ and the FBI are now expected to work at the directive of Donald Trump, not to the upholding of the constitution
Pam Bondi said on stage at DOJ headquarters on March 14, 2025 “We are so proud to work at the directive of Donald Trump”.

[Scott Abbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-researched, well-written, and incredibly informative account of how Donald Trump and those who have supported him have corrupted the Justice Department and the concept of justice in our country over the past decade. I wish every person who voted for Trump would read this book with an open mind to grasp the depth of his harm to all of us. It was painful to read how the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to meet the unprecedented moment of prosecuting Trump for him many illegal acts and heartbreaking to relive the experience of seeing American voters put a man back in office who has no business being there. I only hope we can survive as a nation long enough to bring Trump and his cronies like Stephen Miller and Emil Bove to account for the harm they have caused.

[HR-ML · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished this book 1/18/26. Hardback edition. I
alternated between 2 books. Gave this 4 stars. Carol
Leonnig & Aaron Davis were the authors.

This book was confusing at times because of too
many prosecutors : @ Dept of Justice ( DOJ) at the
FBI and various districts w/ federal prosecutors.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland ran the DOJ. He
was slow to act on crimes associated w/ January
6 insurrection. He overdid wanting to be impartial
& would not talk w/ President Biden, excepting
when called on in a Cabinet meeting. House Select
Committee refused to share transcripts of interviews
witnesses, police, staffers after Jan 6, w/ the DOJ.

Special Counsel Jack Smith waited to see if former Pres.
Trump planned to run again in 2024? While investigating,
getting indictments & hoping for a court date, precious
time was lost. The attorneys for Trump had a strategy of
appeal and delay.

Most in the FBI thought proving the possible felonies
was more important then getting entangled with
misdemeanor charges from Jan. 6th. I agree w/ the FBI.
Garland insisted on felony & misdemeanor charges both.
About 1500 rioters were convicted, and all were pardoned,
but a few, when Trump became President the 2nd time
in Jan. 2025. Some of the felons complained they were
pardoned but still had a felony record. The few that
refused a pardon, admitted their actions were wrong on
Jan. 6th.

The main cases were : Trump and co. trying to un-do
a lawful 2020 election by means to choosing faux electors
from swing states, & expecting Vice Pres. Pence to
recertify the faux electors. There was also the pipe bomb
case, found at Republican National Committee (RNC) and
Democratic National Committee (DNC) both. And later
former President Trump was discovered by the FBI w/
Presidential documents some classified top secret, &
some not, in his Florida home. Once a President leaves
office, the National Archives takes possession, by law,
of his Presidential papers.

This was an interesting book, with some new info about
the 2016 election, Solicitor General, etc. Trump ran for
President in 2016. He needed to replenish his campaign
coffers & chose not to use his own funds. Reportedly
Egypt offered him $10 M for this purpose. True? Such a
candidate is forbidden, by federal law, to accept a
campaign contribution from a foreign country.

[Michaela Kollin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super depressing but also pretty interesting. I’m a little bit surprised that I ended up liking Zero Fail, Carol Leonnig’s book about the Secret Service a little bit more, but this was still definitely very readable and I thought it did a good job of laying out the decision making processes within the Department of Justice and the FBI from the first Trump administration through the Biden administration and into the second Trump administration.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic. Methodical. Devastating.

[Henry G. Nadeau · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prepare to be sick. Disgusted. Furious. Sad. Fatigued. Helpless.
I kept thinking of what Mr. Rogers would tell frightened children during scary times: look for the helpers and turn to them.
As adults, where do you turn when the helpers become the hunters? The scenarios outlined in this book will take decades to heal. There will be irreparable scars that will cover generations. Americans have done this to ourselves. There are no innocent spectators. We've all played our parts.

[Laura L · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely well researched investigation of the justice depart, focusing on their failure to hold Trump and his cronies responsible for Jan 6 as well as other crimes, although they had the evidence. I wanted to read this in advance of Jack Smith's testimony. In the Merrick Garland DOJ and in the FBI under Chris Wray, process and caution as well as self-imposed time restraints lead to the failure of justice, and we all know what has happened since.
This book is depressing for many reasons, not the least of which is that people with the best of intentions can nevertheless be stymied by processes that are ill-equipped to deal with the onslaught of criminality from a lawless ex and current president and his enablers.

[Annie Howe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and Foreboding

Reading this today in 2026, it is difficult to see how the U.S. justice system was systematically shredded by Trump and his minions over the last year. Leonnig and Davis do a thorough job in detailing everything leading up to Trump’s second term and the immediate aftershock. If we are to learn from history, this book is a stark lesson in how to see signs of a nation’s destruction.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

There isn’t a ton of new reporting here but the way it’s put together is very revealing. DOJ is really weak from the first term and Garland and we need to be very concerned.

[John Laliberte · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most compelling books detailing, painfully so, the threat to the rule of law.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

While some of the information in the book is well known, the inside story is intriguing and infuriating. Can’t help think about “what if….”.

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a tangled web we weave.
So many cooks in the justice department's multiple agencies - each working on different aspects of the shenanigans of, at the time, our previous president. At times, even within a single agency those in charge didn't always agree how or what to include.
I do end up wondering how his defense attorneys rationalize their performance and thought process.
I also had the thought, while reading this, that I don't know if I could sit on a jury and keep an open mind.

[Brent Moulton · Rating 5 out of 5]

On the walls of the U.S. Department of Justice headquarters is the inscription: "No free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law. Where law ends, tyranny begins. Law alone can give us freedom." Throughout most of its history, the "righteous mission" of the Department has been to uphold the supremacy of the law—to enforce the laws fairly and impartially, to keep the country safe from threats, and to protect Americans' rights as citizens, even from the actions of the government itself.

Twice in my lifetime that lofty mission has been endangered by corrupt presidents who saw themselves as above the law.

When the Watergate break-in took place, I was a young college student. In President Nixon's actions to try to evade responsibility for the break-in, he damaged the integrity of the Justice Department, for example, by the "Saturday night massacre", when he fired the attorney general and the deputy in order to fire the special prosecutor who was investigating him. Ultimately, however, the supremacy of the law was reaffirmed by the courts and by Congress. The Supreme Court endorsed the principle that no one, including the president, is above the law when it unanimously ruled that Nixon must release the Watergate tapes. And when Congress moved on a bipartisan basis to hold him accountable, Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment and conviction. The only failure of the supremacy of the law was when President Ford pardoned Nixon, allowing him to avoid facing accountability for his crimes in a court of law.

As I tried to understand the events of Watergate, I turned to two excellent investigative books written by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, All the President's Men and The Final Days. Now, as I try to make sense of the most recent and far more destructive assault on our nation's justice system by another corrupt president who sees himself as above the law, I turned to this book, which is another excellent investigative report written, again, by two Post reporters, Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis.

After the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin, responded to a question about whether the Justice Department would look at President Trump's role in the attack, saying "I'm going to stand by my earlier statement: We're looking at all actors here, and anyone that had a role. If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged." So, I was expecting that Trump would be investigated and, most likely, charged.

A couple months later, when it was already becoming clear that then ex-President Trump was planning for another run for president, I remember thinking about the implication for a potential prosecution. To avoid charges of interference in the 2024 campaign, Trump would ideally need to be tried before the end of 2022, which meant he would need to be indicted by the end of 2021. The investigation would need to move quickly.

As we now know, the investigation did not move quickly. Attorney General Merrick Garland didn't appoint a special counsel, Jack Smith, to investigate Trump's actions regarding the January 6 attack until November 2022. Smith didn't bring indictments until July 2023 on the mishandling of classified documents and until August 2023 on the January 6 case. As we know, the classified documents case was ultimately thrown out by Judge Aileen Cannon, a corrupt Trump appointee. And the clock eventually ran out on the January 6 case as the Supreme Court took its sweet time in ruling on presidential immunity.

Why did it take so long for the Justice Department to act? This is where this book, by reporting on the internal discussions and decisions that were being made, really makes a contribution to our understanding of the story. I learned that for the first 15 months of the Biden administration, there were essentially no investigations of the former president, either by the FBI or by any of the prosecutors that potentially had jurisdiction for his law breaking. Only the House January 6 Committee, created six months after the attack, was actively investigating the president's role in the attack.

The story of why the Justice Department was so slow and reluctant to investigate is infuriating. While Merrick Garland seems to have been well intentioned, desiring to restore the Department's reputation as a nonpartisan and impartial institution, his fear of being criticized by Republicans led him to undermine the principle of equal enforcement of the law by repeatedly overlooking Trump's potential crimes until the evidence became overwhelming. And the FBI simply appears to have been cowed by their experiences during the first Trump administration under Attorney General William Barr, to the point that they were afraid to investigate the former president.

We'll never know whether an expedited investigation and prosecution would have led to Trump being convicted and imprisoned. Certainly, Judge Cannon went far beyond the normal bounds of a district judge in favoring Trump's defense in a case that seemed like it should have been a slam-dunk conviction. In the book we learn that the decision to charge Trump in Miami where there was a high risk that the case would be assigned to Cannon, was not inevitable; Smith could have charged Trump in Washington, DC, but chose not to.

The Supreme Court, in its decision on presidential immunity, went against the clear views of the founding fathers that the President should be subject to the laws like any other citizen. (See The Federalist Papers: No. 69, which says, "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.") Yet, despite Congress never having passed a law giving the president immunity from prosecution, in Trump v United States the Supreme Court decided to make up out of whole cloth a doctrine of "absolute immunity" for the president's official acts, thus giving President Trump in his second term carte blanche to ride roughshod over the law and the Constitution.

The three sections of the book cover the Department of Justice under the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the first few months of the second Trump administration. In the final section, we see the near total destruction of the notion of the supremacy of the law, as under Attorney General Pam Bondi the Department has eliminated functions that were designed to keep it ethical and has become a tool for Trump seeking vengeance on his political enemies.

Sadly, it will not be easy to rebuild an ethical and impartial Department of Justice after Trump leaves office. Will we as a nation ever regain a bipartisan consensus that the supremacy of the law is the principle around which the Department should be organized? I hope so but must admit that it sadly may not happen.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This seems to me to be a very necessary book. Someone had to chronicle the ways in which the Justice Department has proved vulnerable to political pressure, especially from the Trump administration, but those same vulnerabilities--as with the vulnerabilities we have seen in 2025 in media independence generally--are not new, only supercharged by Trump and his people. Sometimes it seemed the authors were more interested in condemning Trump than they were with illuminating the whole story of what happened at Justice.

Clearly this team from the Washington Post has learned a thing or two from their fellow Post reporter, Bob Woodward; every significant source is introduced with a bit of puffery that I've become familiar with from Woodward's books. Reading between the lines once sees a negotiation between the source and the reporters, perhaps implicitly, that if they give what the authors want, they will not be targeted themselves but shown in a flattering light. This is probably necessary to get cooperation, and no doubt sources thinking about talking will see how previous sources have been treated and feel more confident that they won't regret talking, at least that is how Woodward does it and seems to be going on here as well.

Granted the horrors visited on our government by Trump and Co. merit condemnation, but in a book that seeks to expose what was really happening during these events, the writers had an obligation to present the whole story, not just the story of those who were the losers in the battle for control over Justice.

The authors are too clearly partisan for me to have faith in their reporting. The way they relate stories, the ways in which they treat single sources as representative, and how they frame the events is clearly aimed at making the case against Trump with as much force as they can muster. It is a prosecution more than it is an attempt to write a history. There is no defense presented here, no recognition that things are rarely honestly portrayed when set out in stark black and white. Sometimes they just leave out inconvenient facts.

For example, like much of the liberal press during the election that Trump lost, they treat certain things Trump said in isolation because they certainly were statements worthy of gotcha journalism at the time, but now you'd expect an attempt to go deeper than gotcha. They talk of Trump's shocking comment that the Proud Boys should "stand back and stand by", which was easy to interpret at the time as a order to the Boys to stand ready if Trump needed them, a chilling idea. However, Trump at the time clarified and that clarification is treated as unworthy of noting, saying that he ONLY said "stand back and stand by," but in fact soon after he attempted to walk it back: Trump said when asked about this earlier comment, "I don't know who the Proud Boys are. I mean, you'll have to give me a definition, because I really don't know who they are. I can only say they have to stand down and let law enforcement do their work." Believable or not, it can't be ignored, unless it serves your purposes to do so.

Good people on both sides, another Trump comment that fueled gotcha journalism. As if Trump's statement that there were good people on both sides of a protest that he made when asked to condemn ALL of those who marched in support of him because their side of the protest included white supremacist groups. There thousands of Trump supporters there to support Trump, obviously, not marching to show solidarity with the Proud Boys, but the press insisted that Trump condemn the whole array of people in the protest after violence occurred. The authors here also treat that as if Trump were stating his allegiance with white supremacy. (Now I'm not saying Trump isn't sympathetic with white supremacy, but I don't think you can take "good people on both sides" as demonstrating this, any more than BLM supporters can be condemned because anarchists at their protests torched cop cars.)

I won't try to critique the chapters or anything like that, but from my perspective the books reads like the prosecutions case against Trump, Barr, Bondi and the rest, and what I'd like to see is a book that gives the other side a chance to raise a defense, which rarely happens here. Of course it is not the job of the prosecution to make the defense's case. Only after the passage of time are we likely to get a book with enough perspective to do justice for both sides.

I give it three stars because it is a story that needs to be told, and if the only ones likely to do that are partisan, that is better than the story going untold. Sadly, though, this book won't be read by Trump supporters, and even if they start it, they will never finish it because of its partisan telling. I can hear their verdict in advance. "Fake news," they will say and dismiss it.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is brilliant. I learned things I hadn't known, was reminded of things I had forgotten, and found myself swinging back and forth the whole way between fury and horror. "Injustice" poses an unanswerable question: How does a rule-based organization, run by individuals who respect the rule of law and the integrity of the Department of Justice -- how do they respond to an individual and a movement that doesn't care about any of those things; that will lie without blinking, tell its people not to believe what they're looking at, not to believe in common sense?

This, for example. I probably knew it once but it hit me with awful force: The [House January 6] committee’s opening day of “trial” drew over nineteen million viewers, more than most Monday Night Football games or the series finale of the record-breaking series Game of Thrones. But half the country heard a completely different story, or nothing at all about the hearings. Unlike every other cable news network, Fox News and Trump’s increasingly frequent go-to, Newsmax, did not air most of the hearings. On Fox, Tucker Carlson began his show saying the network wouldn’t air Democrats’ propaganda. “They are lying,” Carlson said, “and we are not going to help them do it.” Newsmax aired the eleven-minute video revealing the assault officers faced at the Capitol, but then equated the scenes to the vandalism and conflicts between some crowds and police officers following Black Lives Matter protests and the killing of George Floyd.

Missed chances, internal disputes, bickering, cowardice, naivety, fear of bad press, of appearing to be motivated not by the facts and the law but by politics -- much of all this well-intentioned, even rational, but inadequate to the challenge of what Trump and his enablers were doing. DOJ veterans: Democrats and Republicans, people who had voted for Biden and others who had voted for Trump, watched what was going on with shocked disbelief. Mass resignations by DOJ professionals at all levels when they were told to do something illegal, unethical, or in direct contravention of DOJ written policy. Timidity.

The idea of rifling through the home of a former president made the Washington Field Office agents and even FBI supervisors in headquarters recoil. Since 2016, FBI agents had taken a beating. They faced accusations they were political tools when they had investigated Hillary Clinton and again when investigating Trump’s campaign for its contacts with Russian operatives.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Russian connections were so obvious that even a Republican-led Senate investigation came to the same conclusion. And then quickly decided none of it ever happened.

I am reminded of the famous comment made by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson as he shut down the code-breaking office: "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail." And when there are no gentlemen, only dishonorable men in suits and top hats spouting patriotic platitudes and shouting indignantly while all the while they are emptying every room in the house? What then?

There's a passage in the book that captures some of what I feel. It concerns the announcement of indefensible Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity: Garland’s shock was informed by something deeper. He knew these justices well, knew most of them personally, knew how they’d decided other cases. He knew they had to be aware of the precedents they were trampling over. “They know this is wrong,” Garland later told a confidant.

Of course they know it’s wrong. They just don’t care. Or they believe that right and wrong, morality, and the law must all cede place to some “higher” purpose.

I read "Injustice" because I have the highest respect for the authors. Because I knew the book would be well-written, deeply reported, and truthful. Because the subject is of the highest importance. Because I can't bring myself to look away.

I don't at all regret reading “Injustice” — to the contrary, I’m glad I did — but I put the book down feeling profoundly dejected. I can only keep doing what I can to resist and hope the madness dissipates before the damage is beyond repair.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Useful book for understanding Trump's assault on the DoJ for the full span of his presidencies. Up front, my critiques are that it is very much "one thing then another" journalism that, while very well reported, didn't have enough of the periscope moments that zoom out on the story and give the reader a bigger picture. It also didn't really have an argument besides Trump assaulting and weaponizing the DOJ as no president ever has.

I read this mainly to get a sense of why the DoJ and Biden admin failed to get Trump on trial for either seditious conspiracy to commit electoral fraud/block a constitutional process and/or his stolen documents case. The book was quite helpful in this sense. Here were some of the major factors:

1. An almost absolute lack of Republican cooperation and their relentless protection of Trump.

2. Biden and Garland wanted to restore the apolitical, professional reputation of the Department of Justice after 4 years of Trump weaponizing and politicizing it. This meant that Biden wanted to keep a firewall between himself and Garland's decisions about prosecutions. Garland, a consummate professional and decent person, was nonetheless not the right guy for the job. He decided to move too deliberately in building a case, in part waiting for the Jan 6 Committee to finish his work, and he failed to appoint a special prosecutor until almost 2 years after January 6. This put Jack Smith's team on the clock, racing against the electoral cycle, which was an untenable position. Garland valued the reputation of the DOJ too much, acting as if we still lived in a "normal" pre-Trump era.

3. Another issue had to do with the initial DoJ response and who was targeted for investigation. DoJ lawyers, Garland included, focused too much on lower-level offenders (i.e., people who broke into the Capitol or assaulted police) and not enough on the conspirators who drove Trump's plan to overturn the election. In other words, they went after low-hanging fruit in an attempt to avoid looking political when this was an inherently political thing. They particularly discounted the importance of the false elector scheme, which Trump was closely involved with, which was the core of the administration's insane idea that they could overturn the election. There was probably more info and stronger cases to be made against higher-level conspirators if the paradigm had been different from the jump. There was also an attitude among many DoJ agents, especially outside of DoJ, that the insurrectionists were simply "knuckleheads" and not serious threats to democracy.

4. Biden was, frankly, disengaged from this whole process. I know he is supposed to be disengaged, but he also could have removed Garland at any point and appointed someone more aggressive.

5. Finally, Trump v the US absolutely gutted the effort to prosecute Trump by deeming many of his acts before January 6 as "official acts" within his constitutional duty, thereby making him immune from prosecution. Despite the shoddiness of this ruling, it took the wind out of the prosecution, especially because it came so close to the election. There still technically could have been a trial that would look at whether Trump's electoral interference acts counted as "official" and therefore immune, and it's conceivable that prosecutors could have made a good case that Trump was acting illegally as a candidate, not legally as a president (which was the angle they were workshopping during the investigation). Sadly, we never got the chance to test this.

SO it may have been that the effort to prosecute Trump for a variety of crimes was doomed from the start because of the Supreme Court and the Republican Party. But I can't help concluding that Garland and Biden erred tremendously in not getting the ball rolling faster and getting him on trial within 4 years. So anyways, a frustrating but useful book on an important phase of recent US history.

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 1969 David Halberstram told the world how outstanding policy professionals got us into and kept us in an unwinnale war. Here we learn how the best and the brightest lawyers were unable to prosecute a defendant, whom we are now told they had “Dead to rights”.

It starts with Andrew McCabe, the first to experience presidential vengeance for his work in the Trump-Russia probe and ends with Trump’s 2024 in your face victory celebration party at the DOJ.

Most of the book is a retelling of recent history. If you have followed the news you would most likely find interest in the behind the scenes interactions. For me, the most interesting were the attempt to install Jeffrey Clark as Attorney General and the resignations that followed the pressure to remove the charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams.

Through most of the book what you see is a process culture. There are reports, reviews, and arguments. Every document is perfect in its conformance to precedent and DOJ policy. It appears that the forest is missed in favor of trees.

The department is constrained by its own forest (better known as policies). 1) A sitting president cannot be charged and 2) the department should not do anything that appears to be partisan/political especially before or during an election,

It is within the purview of the department to challenge, qualify and/or change these policies. FBI Director Comey broke rule #2 in regard to Hillary Clinton in 2016 with no known consequences to him – demonstrating that it can be done. The book shows staff having total acceptance of them. No one suggested or hinted that these may not be serving justice.

After Nancy Pelosi’s House Committee demonstrated the case to the public, DOJ finally got on it. The issue was well summarized when Justice David Carter heard the first official case on the matter. He said (p.228) “More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it.” This case was carefully presented, well documented and in line with precedent and policies. It was a sure winner, but it was over whether John Eastman’s emails were admissible evidence. This is nowhere near the heart of the matter.

You can see the why all the DOJ caution in the right wing backlash over the perfectly, and over cautiously performed Mar-a-Lago search. The book does not discuss DOJ communication policies, but these need a review too.

The facts of the document case were clearly on the DOJ/FBI side, so why does a significant portion of public, to this day, still not understand that taking the documents, alone, was a significant breach of the law? Why did they not tell the public – not just once, but often - about this case. How about updates on the judge’s successful attempts to run out the clock or its relation to the David Patraeus case or Hillary Clinton’s email server, etc. Without leading the conversation they give their hard work to others to interpret.

Throughout the book there are incidents where you see a violation of the department’s motto “without fear or favor.” On a few occasions, this is noted by staff.

The staff appears to be well qualified, experienced and committed. You see their in house access to tremendous expertise (there seems to be a specialist for every need). Their commitment to the law and the department is shown in how they have put their careers on the line for the moral issues they faced. It does not seem to be the staff, but the unexamined policies that constrainined the department.

Leonnig and Davis have done a remarkable job in putting this together. This is the first cut of history. More works will surely follow.

[Behrooz Parhami · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the unabridged 16-hour audio version of this title (read by January LaVoy and the authors, Books on Tape, 2025).

Pulitzer-Prize-winning Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis report on their deep investigation into the subversion of the US Justice Department by Donald Trump to target his enemies and to help him cling to power after his 2020 election defeat. They also criticize delays under Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose overly cautious approach to avoid accusations of partisanship betrayed the trust of American people in not holding Trump accountable for his misdeeds, thus enabling his return to power.

With never-before-told accounts based on sources deeply embedded in three presidential administrations, Leonnig and Davis lay out prosecutors’ thought processes and fears of retribution, Trump’s disdain for the rule of law, and FBI’s disarray in the face of constant attacks. Jack Smith led a heroic effort to investigate Trump for his instigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol and his mishandling of classified documents, as he raced against time. The effort, which led to formal charges, was ultimately unsuccessful in light of decisions at the DoJ and US Supreme Court. One can even say that it backfired.

The book is a jaw-dropping account of partisans & enablers undoing democracy, heroes still battling to preserve a nation governed by laws, and a call to action for those who believe in liberty & justice for all. There are quite a few heroes in this story, including members of the House Select Committee that held hearings on the events of January 6 and the Committee’s investigators who exposed Trump’s deep involvement in planning the insurrection, as well as attempts at manipulating the voting outcomes and the use of fake electors in several key states.

The current administration’s distorted justice is all about score-settling against perceived enemies and granting of favors, such as pardons, to allies & political contributors. Attorney General Pam Bondi obeys Trump’s orders of prosecuting or not prosecuting individuals, which he usually issues through social-media posts, and she bestows lavish praise on her boss at every opportunity. A key take-away from this book is that Trump’s daily war against the soul of the Justice Department constitutes a turning point in US politics from which it will be hard to recover

[Jeanne Charbonneau · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors expertly and clearly detail an insider's account of the dismantling of the DOJ and FBI and the rise of Noem, Patel and Bondi. They provide an enlightening perspective on how law enforcement at the federal level has lost any sense of right-vs-wrong, morality, ethics, standards or allegiance to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Beginning with the election of 2020 and the Trump efforts to deny and discredit the results, Leonnig and Davis crystallize the chaotic cases and investigations surrounding Trump that were flooding the news cycles before and after the election of 2024. We learn details and imposed time pressures of the Mueller, Smith and Congressional investigations, the delaying tactics, lawsuits and court cases
We meet, by name & position, the many professional and truly bipartisan agents, prosecutors and dedicated civil servants who served honorably for presidents of both parties, often over the course of decades. Many resigned rather than answer the survey about who they voted for and whether they've ever donated to a Democrat. More resigned when pushed hard to take unethical actions, such as dismissing the rock-solid case against Mayor Eric Adams in NY because Trump liked him. The Public Integrity team -- whose job was to investigate allegations of corruption among elected officials -- remains now only in name, staffed largely by loyalists to the current administration. Corruption charges are now most frequently levied at 'enemies' of the administration. Many were fired simply for doing the jobs to which they were assigned, such as the January 6th investigations, the classified documents investigation or the fake electors scheme. Collectively, hundreds of years of experience was lost through these unceremonious and often curt dismissals, as well as the many principaled resignations. This book chronicles the very intentional destruction of a legal and political system that was -- while far from perfect -- not egregiously corrupt, callous, cruel, malicious and self-serving. This book is informative, understandable, discouraging and very much worth reading.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

My online book club is reading this month. I wasn’t under the impression it was about the DoJ, not 1/6. I really didn’t want to re-live the leading up to and that day, and the continuation. But, I gave it a try. I thought I knew everything to know about 1/6. I was wrong. Much of it wasn’t even reported. It’s a fast, fascinating and sometimes shocking, and of course eye opening. It’s a fast eye opening book. It definitely reads like a spy thriller. Unfortunately it’s true.

The most I didn’t realize was how the DoJ, FBI was affected by Trump and his administration’s actions after he was inaugurated. Trump knew the elections was secured in 2020.

The crazy was administration named to 2 people in FBI positions. In the press they mixed up the names for the FBI positions. What do they do? They didn’t want to be embarrassed. The administration kept them in those positions?! What the heck?! In a normal world you are expected to have expertise in a position.

In this administration it mostly doesn’t matter. They have no training and expertise. What gets you in is money. But still it’s shocking.

I have underlined and post-it all over the book. But, the big thing was Garland.

He slow walked everything saying he didn’t want to look too political. I think many who worked in DoJ were scared, and some were influenced by Trump. Politics was and always had to be independent from the White House. DOJ wanted to look that way.

Unfortunately Garland was wrong. He needed to change tactics. It took an entire year before any action was taken against Trump, and others. The only reason they finally acted because 1/6 select committee embarrassed them by bringing the hearing to the people before DoJ did. Even DoJ didn’t have as much receipts as Congress did.

I have read Carol Leonnig book about the Secret Service. So I knew what to expect. She didn’t disappoint. If you are a political junkie, or want to have a deep dive where DoJ went wrong. I recommend reading.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

A meticulously reported book that recounts the challenges Trump's behavior poses for the rule of law. This book serves as an example of how so many people can be persuaded to act immorally and unethically. If you ever wanted to know whether Stanley Milgram's experiment of being told to administer increasingly more painful shocks due to an authoritarian figure would still occur in the 2020's look no further for a cast of characters who would willingly do the bidding of an immoral, corrupt, incompetent authoritarian president. Here you have enablers, sycophants, and grifters willing to suborn long-standing ethical behavior at the behest of a cruel, ignorant, and incompetent man. What's particularly enraging is the behavior of the Courts to promote this type of norm-breaking behavior. Shame on the Supreme Court, led by John Roberts, who effectively would allow a President to assassinate a political rival based on the Executive authority of the Office of the President of the United States. Trump's guilt of breaking multiple laws is meticulously documented--absconding with confidential information, lying and misleading his own lawyers, shaking down officials to promote false electors and fraudulent elections, encouraging an insurrection... all sanctioned by an ideological court. This book is an eyewitness account of the degradation of the United States of America and a reminder of how fragile our democracy is.

[Steve Peifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The thing is this: so much has happened so quickly that the usual complaints about a book like this being too early because the complete story hasn’t unfolded yet is kind of forgotten.

The scale of the assault on DOJ is absolutely astonishing, and the mendacity of the thirst for revenge is without historical precedent.

However.

I am the farthest thing from a Trump fan, but it seems like perhaps the authors might have given some room to explain why Trump felt so besieged. For example, given the fact that both Biden and Pence had classified documents makes the unprecedented raid of Mar-a-Lago appear to be overreach by DOJ. (They are very different circumstances, but raiding a former president’s home seems a bit much) It is a pretty one sided book and for the most part it makes sense, but there were a few instances where the other side would have made it a fuller story.

I think the best part of the book is showing how well meaning people trying to reestablish norms were unable to meet the moment because they were reacting without considering how dangerous Trump was. They brought subpoenas to a knife fight.

It’s a great read and I hope they follow the story with several more books. They will have plenty to write about.

[Ell, Ess Jaeva]

dnf 10%. i just can't. prologue starts spewing about the law, however if u listen closely, processes and procedures of tradition are mentioned in parallel... meaning it's mostly not about the law but what we--the amorphous institution-- traditionally thinks is right/wrong. DOJ were a bunch of non-political ball/strike straight shooters, then came trump. gtfoh?!? i just can't with this bs...

case in point https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/... given AIPAC

not that trump is not an ethical and moral problem to "the law"--Judge Dredd. but trump's biggest issue is just NOT pretending to be moral/ethical, fair. "the law" is supposed to gaslight and be sneaky about fucking over the non-powerful vs coddling the powerful... trump keeps jumping from behind the curtain.