A friend said recently that even if prosecutors proved that Donald Trump had committed huge crimes, we should never see a President of the United States in an orange jump suit.
He had no quarrel with Trump’s impeachment, or with VP Spiro Agnew going to jail in the ‘70s. If Trump cheated banks and government out of big bucks, they could and should pursue him civilly; but not jail an ex-president.
I disagree.
Trump should not be prosecuted vengefully, or because prosecutors disagree with his politics. If he’s a danger to our republic, we should fight that danger in appropriate ways. Twisting our legal system to jail him solely to protect our system would help destroy our system. Just as Trump should not have tried to use the Justice Department to attack political enemies, state and municipal prosecutors should not abuse the justice system – even trying to save it.
It sounds as if the alleged crimes involve massive violations of tax laws and perhaps massive frauds on banks. Allegedly, Trump used various schemes to compensate employees under the table, so that the amounts weren’t taxed, and that assets were significantly undervalued (to the taxperson) or extremely inflated (to lenders). If charges are proven in court, Trump should be treated as others who’ve committed similar crimes involving similar amounts of money. If they would go to jail, he probably should. If they normally wouldn’t, he probably shouldn’t.
It’s a key tenet of our democracy that no one is above the law. No one. Our founders would have loathed the thought of immunizing high officials against criminal prosecution. Yes, in practice powerful people abuse their power and escape punishment for misconduct, or their crimes are ignored by lesser officials to curry favor. My friend strongly argued that so much of the system is corrupt that it’d be unfair to jail this ex-president and not others who probably committed crimes.
Actually, although most presidents probably would be alleged by someone to have violated national or international law, flagrant and significant law-breaking is uncommon. Richard Nixon seems to have committed crimes, including obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting burglary, but Gerald Ford pardoned him. Bill Clinton committed perjury; but in criminal law “the exculpatory lie” (merely denying the conduct of which one is guilty) is rarely prosecuted. Warren Harding appointed a cabinet full of poker pals and cronies, some flagrantly dishonest, and some went to jail; but Harding, who appears not to have been personally involved in criminal activities, was pardoned by Death.
I might say LBJ and Nixon committed war crimes in Southeast Asia; Bush II clearly winked at illegal torture, and Obama probably violated international law in pursuing terrorists; but where the alleged crime is committed in the republic’s interest, we may have to grant some leeway, although just how much is a damned tough question.
Basically, we should not give a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to a criminal who gets himself elected president. It sends the wrong message. How does a judge sentence a shoplifter from Walmart when the president skates after stealing millions? Too many public officials already get away with misconduct.
Sure, I think Orange Hair wearing orange might be a healthy development for our country; but that’s a thought I’d try to put aside if I were a juror. Trump deserves the same treatment John Doe would get for the same conduct.
- 30 -
[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 6 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]
[We are all somewhere on a continuum between taking whatever we can, without regard for others, manipulating them for our perceived gain, on the one hand, or trying to give more, in whatever ways we can, and take less. Religions get founded around figures like Jesus and Buddha who urge us toward the more generous and cooperative end of the spectrum – which often seems kind of boring and weak when one is young. I’m sure no saint on that score. Mr. Trump is as far toward his end of the spectrum as anyone I’ve run across. It would be an interesting challenge to be on the jury trying to decide the truth or falsity of specific accusations in a court. (Of course I’d be tossed off the jury, first because I’ve practiced law and second because I’ve expressed my views publicly; and if I weren’t, although I believe strongly in our duty to serve on juries when called, I’d advise the court of why Trump’s lawyers might reasonably question my ability to judge fairly.)]
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
'Bone-Spurs-in-Chief' is a three-time loser who has lied, cheated and subjected himself to Russian influence as president. He is now subject to criminal prosecution in New York and will likely be charged as the civilian that he is if, in fact, there is evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to convict him by a jury of his peers.
ReplyDeleteIf your friend can find legal precedent anywhere in the US Constitution to support his argument that a former president cannot be found guilty for criminal conduct, he should cite that reference. (My opinion, I'm not an attorney).
The social media tools that advanced Trump's political campaign in 2016 have been taken away for his broadcasting lies up to and including the attempted coup/insurrection on Jan. 6.
As contemptible as I find the 45th president to be, he deserves no less and no more legal scrutiny than any other citizen including appropriate sentencing by the courts if he is found guilty for crime(s) committed pursuant to criminal law in whatever jurisdiction(s) when and where such crimes were committed.