Applying a different standard to a powerful person reflects only contempt for the rule of law.
That followed his federal indictment. After he was
indicted in Georgia, Trump openly warned a witness not to testify. “I am
reading reports that failed former Lt. Governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, will
be testifying before the Fulton County Grand Jury,” Trump posted. “He shouldn’t.”
As Trump well knows, when he inflames his MAGA disciples,
violence commonly follows.
Now a woman has been arrested for threatening to kill the judge overseeing Trump’s
federal election interference case. And the Georgia grand jurors who voted to
charge Trump have had their addresses published on an extremist website. Supporters labeled the jurors’ collected addresses a “hit list”
and suggested “long range rifles” might be useful.
Obviously, jurors in any of Trump’s trials risk
retaliation should they decide the evidence proves him guilty.
Judges explicitly warned Trump not to intimidate witnesses or “prejudice potential jurors.” Which raises an
uncomfortable question: Why isn’t he in jail already?
Federal judges take witness tampering seriously —
they revoked bail for alleged
cryptocurrency crook Sam Bankman-Fried for interfering with witness testimony.
That’s simply the rule of law. If you violate the orders under which you’re
released pending trial, you go to jail.
Yet Trump remains at liberty, seemingly determined to move the question of his criminal liability from a court of law into the court of public opinion — and get a chance to pardon himself if elected.
This spring, before the first charges against Trump were
filed in New York, the former president threatened “potential death and destruction” if he
was charged. Judges might well be worried about widespread violence from Trump
supporters if he’s actually jailed. Moreover, some conservative commentators
seem to regard the notion of locking up a former president as unthinkable.
Yes, things have come to a sorry pass when a president is
charged with brazenly violating the law and threatens anyone who’d prosecute
him. But if a man entrusted with the power of the presidency commits crimes
against the Constitution and our democracy, that’s more reason to insist he be
subject to law, not less.
A former top federal prosecutor opined that sending Trump to prison if he were convicted posed “enormous and unprecedented logistical issues.” “Probation,
fines, community service, and home confinement are all alternatives,” claimed
the former prosecutor.
These alternatives aren’t serious. If convicted, Trump
must suffer punishment like anyone else.
Probation is typically reserved for the repentant, and
Trump expresses no repentance. For a billionaire who lives in a luxury golf
resort, fines or home confinement are a slap on the wrist. (Letting Trump
continue charging Secret Service members up to $1,185 per room per night to protect him at Mar-a-Lago would only punish taxpayers.)
And what would community service even consist of?
In truth, the Secret Service can protect Trump more
cheaply if he resides in Leavenworth penitentiary with other nonviolent felons.
A former Secret Service agent confirmed that protecting Trump in
prison poses no great challenge: “If you want to go to prison, you
want to go to [a] federal prison,” he said. “They already have their security
set up… It’s already safe.”
Anyone else convicted of Trump’s crimes would plainly go
to prison for years. And anyone else openly threatening witnesses would quickly
see their bail revoked. Applying a different standard to a powerful person
reflects only contempt for the rule of law.
Mitchell Zimmerman is an attorney, longtime social activist, and author of the anti-racism thriller Mississippi Reckoning. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
