WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. The pre-election public record is full of clues — flashing red lights, really — that Donald Trump is preparing to try to steal the vote again if he loses. The Department of Justice should be investigating it now.

All legitimate, fact-based court challenges to special vote counts are not the problem. The alarm arises from the ominous indications that Trump will try to chew up the work every step vote count, state-by-state Electoral College meetings and certificates of election.

The obvious endgame is to create enough chaos to prevent Congress from certifying any Harris–Walz victory. Hanging over that is the potential for violence both around the country and — in a Jan. 6 redux — at the Capitol. Threats against election officials have already intensified.

There is one reported factual basis enough to warrant the FBI opening a preliminary investigation into the possibility of brazen election interference. When adequate “predication” exists, DOJ rules allow investigators to begin their work before suspected crimes are reached. Gathering evidence before it disappears or before memories fade is sound investigative methodology.

Get 30 days free trial

Under the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations, a preliminary investigation may begin based on information indicating that “(a) activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to national security . . . may occur, or . . . may occur (in the future).” The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to “discover, obtain information about, or prevent or protect against federal crimes.”

Under the guidelines, any such investigation involving a political candidate is deemed “sensitive” — therefore, the highest levels of the Justice Department, sometimes including the National Security Division, must be notified and approved.

Complies with DOJ electorally sensitive politicsshould a new inquiry not be announced before election day to avoid the 2024 version of the 2016 version The Jim Comey disaster. Nonetheless, should news of the investigation leak out, it would likely trigger a huge political blow from the ex-president and his supporters, who will howl that the current administration is the one orchestrating the “interference.”

But the pursuit of justice cannot bend to political pressure. And there is a powerful case for the DOJ to act.

Start with the context. Trump has done it before. Just look at the January 6 House Committee compelling evidence. Or consider two DC grand jury indictmentswhich found probable cause to believe Trump criminally conspired after November 2020 to deceive the United States by impairing its legal functions and that violate civil rights by the majority of Americans.

Or reflect on what is happening now like Trump refuses to say he would accept the 2024 election results, just like he did before the last election. There are overlapping signs of one much better organized effort by Trump and his team this time. The Republican National Committee, headed by the former president’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump, is explicitly fielding an army of “investigative watchdogs” targeting cities with majorities of Democratic voters. Last election, such “surveys” overwhelmed Detroit’s vote-counting centers, among others, and harassed the mostly black election workers there.

Then we have a growing band of election deniers occupying local and state election boards. Any student of political organization understands that deviant election officials appearing systematically in various places do not happen spontaneously. Overall, Trump’s GOP has been recruiting more than a dozen of the last election’s fake electors to act as electors this time. Former Acting General Counsel Neal Katyal put it last week in a nutshell:

Rogues are no longer amateurs. They have spent the last four years becoming professionals, carefully devising a multi-front strategy. . . to overturn any close election.

Special Counsel Jack Smith would be well-positioned to address any efforts by Trump to “steal the election 2.0,” given Smith’s experience investigating election crimes in 2020. The special counsel’s current mandate already includes investigating “efforts to disrupt the legal transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election . . . as well as all matters that have arisen or may arise directly from this investigation.”

Caution would warrant an express expansion of the special counsel’s mandate in a directive from the Attorney General, as set forth in DOJ regulations.

Finally, there is a legal reality that Smith knows well. If Donald Trump loses the election, and if there is reason to believe he has committed another round of election-related crimes, a subsequent impeachment could proceed much more quickly than the current one. After all, in terms of criminal wrongdoing in 2024, Trump would receive no cloak of presidential immunity designed by the John Roberts court, which he received for his 2020 campaign plans. For any effort to steal the 2024 election, private citizen and candidate Trump would have to face justice based on the facts and the law. This time Trump is acting at his own risk.

Donald B. Ayer served as Deputy Attorney General under George HW Bush and Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Reagan Administration.

Philip Allen Lacovara is a former Assistant United States Attorney General for Criminal and National Security Affairs, ex counsel for the Watergate special prosecutorand past president of the District of Columbia Bar.

Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently an attorney with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.