Donald Trump has recently faced three indictments for various crimes committed before, during, and after his presidency. The most recent indictment includes allegations involving key figures within the Republican Party, such as the vice president, White House counsel, and heads of various departments. This indictment skillfully addresses and counters Trump’s claims of selective prosecution by pointing out that not bringing this case against him would have been an act of selective nonprosecution.
The Justice Department has already charged and obtained convictions for numerous individuals involved in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, including over 300 people charged with obstructing congressional proceedings. In this indictment, special counsel Jack Smith brings the same charge against Trump, who is alleged to be the leader behind the effort to impede the transfer of power. The charges of obstruction and conspiracy to defraud the United States are fitting for the conduct described in the indictment. In a previous civil case, Federal District Court judge David Carter held that Trump and John Eastman likely engaged in a criminal conspiracy, supporting the claims made in this indictment.
Interestingly, while the Jan. 6 select committee referred Trump for investigation for inciting insurrection, the Justice Department decided not to charge him with that offense. This is consistent with other cases related to the Capitol attack and avoids fueling claims of political manipulation by weaponizing the Justice Department. Charging Trump with criminal interference in the peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected president is necessary for maintaining equal accountability under the law.
Those defending Trump and dismissing these charges essentially advocate for a two-tiered system of justice, where those who fell for lies and participated in the attack are held accountable, but the main instigator escapes punishment. Judges overseeing cases related to Jan. 6 have already expressed concerns about this injustice. We are now on the brink of holding Trump accountable, addressing the lack of consequences for his actions.
This indictment stands out from other cases involving Trump because it eliminates any argument of whataboutism. It directly addresses Trump’s involvement in promoting the big lie and election fraud, which contributed to the violence on Jan. 6. Trump’s continued statements in support of the defendants can be used against him in trial, further emphasizing his responsibility in the attack.
Senator Mitch McConnell’s statement after Trump’s impeachment trial highlights the fact that former presidents are not immune to accountability. The indictment also suggests that Trump will likely not be the last white-collar defendant facing charges for similar crimes. The rule of law cannot tolerate co-conspirators being held accountable while the main instigator goes free.
The real test lies ahead for us as Americans. Will we prioritize the rule of law and hold Trump accountable at the ballot box? The courtroom is a place where facts and law still matter, but the upcoming criminal cases against Trump will determine whether the same can be said for our democratic process.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at the New York University School of Law, and Andrew Weissmann, a senior prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, co-authored this piece. They urge readers to share their thoughts by contacting the email provided. The New York Times Opinion section can also be followed on social media platforms.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
