Reid K. Beveridge has covered politics in Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Delaware and Washington, D.C. He resides in Milton.
One might think that liberals and conservatives alike could agree on this: It is a bad idea to criminalize politics.
For example, it was a bad idea for Maximilien Robespierre to guillotine King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette. This despite the French monarchy’s manifold sins.
On the other hand, it was a good thing when President Gerald R. Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon in the wake of Watergate. The upheaval of a criminal trial of a former president would have been hard to bear for the country.
Equally with the French Revolution, it was a bad idea for Vladimir Lenin to have Czar Nicholas II; his wife, Alexandra; and their children shot. The world is still suffering from the sins of the Bolsheviks.
But it was very wise for Nelson Mandela to promote reconciliation to heal the wounds of South African apartheid rather than the majority Black population prosecute their tormentors when they finally achieved power in the 1990s. This notwithstanding the fact that the White-majority governments had imprisoned Mandela for 27 years for the crime of speaking out.
There are more examples, too numerous to enumerate. You’d think we’d learn. But here we are, seemingly headed for another such mistake. Liberals/progressives and perhaps even the U.S. Department of Justice seem hellbent on prosecuting former President Donald Trump for his sins, whatever they are.
Why do they hate him so? For that matter, why does Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., hate him so? What did Donald Trump ever do to Liz Cheney to rouse such fury? Trump and Cheney are pretty much aligned on policy and the issues. True, Trump once criticized Rep. Cheney’s father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, for his role in the Iraq war.
No, it is something visceral. Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr describes much of this in his new book, “One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General.” Barr, who served as Trump’s attorney general for two years, has a cleareyed and sober view of Trump. He is a big fan of Trump’s policies. As for Trump’s personality and leadership style, not so much.
Now comes the FBI with a warrant to search Trump’s home in Florida. We don’t know the predicate — the rationale for such a search. Some believe it has to do with 15 boxes of documents, perhaps some of them classified, that the National Archives believes should be stored with them rather than in Trump’s home.
Such events are not uncommon with departing presidents. Many seek to take documents with them to aid them in writing memoirs or for other purposes. In the past, any disputes between those former presidents have been resolved with quiet negotiations about which no one ever hears.
On the other hand, others believe, so far without evidence, that it has something to do with the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Liberals call this event an insurrection. Trump, who continues to contend that he won, rather than lost, the 2020 election, held a rally that day on the National Mall and encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol.
Whatever the theory, it is increasingly clear that the Jan. 6 committee and the U.S. Justice Department are determined to indict and try Mr. Trump for some violation. Yet another theory is that they want to indict him for insurrection and then invoke one of the provisions of the 14th Amendment to bar him from ever holding federal office again. This provision was added to the 14th Amendment in 1867 to keep former Confederate officers from running for and serving in Congress.
Executing a search warrant on the home of a former president is unprecedented in U.S. history. They didn’t do it for Richard Nixon, even though he resigned for his role in the Watergate burglary and coverup. They didn’t do it for Warren G. Harding. They didn’t do it for Andrew Johnson, even though his impeachment and removal from office fell only one vote short in the Senate.
They didn’t do it because, formerly, U.S. attorneys general knew that what goes around comes around. Impeaching presidents you don’t like (see Bill Clinton; see Trump, twice) has become too common and too easy. If you can impeach Trump for a phone call to another head of state, then Republicans can impeach President Joe Biden for something if they regain the House majority this November.
But they shouldn’t, any more than Attorney General Merrick Garland should let Justice indict Mr. Trump.
