1) David A. Graham, “Trump Opened Pandora’s Prosecutorial Box; For centuries America has avoided seriously considering whether former presidents should ever be prosecuted. Now that luxury is gone, The Atlantic, September 11, 2022 (7:00 a.m. ET);
2) “Should Trump be indicted?” The Trenchant Observer, September 28, 2021.
Sometimes sophisticated minds can’t grasp the most obvious and simplest truths.
Graham describes the “taboo” about prosecuting a former president.
The issue is so blazingly simple that the mind boggles at the apparent inability of commentators to grasp it.
There should be no taboo against applying the law against those who violate it.
Only a moment’s analysis should make clear that there should not be any exception for ex-presidents, if we want to live in a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
What would be wrong would be to prosecute anyone including a former president on trumped-up charges, as occurs in authoritarian countries like Russia and China. Such action would constitute a fundamental breach of the rule of law.
At the same time failure to prosecute crimes by an ex-president or anyone else because of their political position would constitute an equally grave breach of the rule of law.
What part of this analysis are commentators unable to understand?
They seem to have it half right. They just left out the “trumped-up charges” or language from the taboo.
We need to ask more of our commentators than the mindless repetition of buzzwords. We should actually demand that they think.
It should not be that hard to determine if criminal charges are “trumped up” and politically motivated or not.
The way you do this is to present the evidence of a crime and of the guilt of tbe accused to a grand jury. If the grand jury returns an indictment, then you prosecute the defendant on the charges before a jury.
There should be no talk of a taboo here.
We’re only talking about the rule of law in a democratic state governed by law.
The Trenchant Observer