The New York Times has never ceased their love for demented "both-sides" opinion articles, and today's idiotic take by Ankush Khardori, that "Trump’s Prosecution Has Set a Dangerous Precedent," is just another addition to the pile.
Khardori argues that it is terrible for the United States to have the first indictment of a President, current or former, be something so small and not rising to the level of "threat to democracy." To paraphrase him, we've gone over two hundred years without tainting the men who've served in office with an indictment, and when we finally break that glass ceiling, it's devastating for the case to be for sex with a porn star. This is intellectual garbage - it's like Khardori's only criteria for "valid crime" includes a requirement that the indictment have poetic justice to it. The crime has to involve death and destruction, and if not, "meh." To quote Justice Scalia, Khardori's mind is more focused on "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" than the rule of law. According to Khardori's delusions of how American law works, if you you're a President, and you break the law, it's perfectly okay to do it as long as Khardori doesn't get goosebumps and terrible nightmares after reading the charges.
Yes, it is true that Donald Trump is the first President to have been indicted for a crime, but the reason for it has involved a lot more luck than Khardori would care to admit. I would remind you that President Warren Harding likely participated in one of the worst political scandals in American history, Teapot Dome, which resulted in the conviction of two members of the Warren cabinet, including his Attorney General, Harry Daugherty. However, Warren Harding died before any more investigations pointing directly at him could finish, so no indictment was ever made. Second, it's very obvious that Richard Nixon committed a slew of crimes in office, was forced to resign, and the only reason he wasn't charged for it was because Gerald Ford bailed him out with a pardon. If Spiro Agnew had not been offered a can't-say-no plea deal by the Justice Department in late 1973 to give up his office of the Vice Presidency in exchange for zero prison time, he might have been indicted, pled not guilty, and become President in 1974 while under criminal indictment for taking bribes. So the fact that Trump is *the first* to be indicted is a result of sheer dumb luck - not because he's the first President to commit actual crimes!
Khardori's logic is covered by a veil of reverence for the Presidency and the rule of law, but in reality, his argument is just a series of excuses for the powerful and the well-connected. If Trump decided tomorrow to take up drinking, drove drunk on Fifth Avenue, and killed a person, I would not be shocked if someone like Khardori said, "It sets a terrible precedent to have the first indictment of a President be for drunk driving, even if it did result in a tragedy." No more excuses. The law is the law, and if Trump broke it, he should held accountable like the rest of us would be.
Khardori also argues that this indictment will set a terrible precedent and encourage prosecutors from every corner of America, including ones in red counties, to investigate and charge Democratic presidents for crimes. My response: If that's the worst consequence of doing this, so be it! I would bet that's a price nearly every pro-democracy American in this country is willing to pay if that means holding the powerful accountable to following our laws. This fear-mongering about retaliation is not new - Republicans made similar arguments like this when Trump was impeached for the second time after January 6th. Josh Hawley claimed that because Democrats had concluded that impeachment of a former President was now the precedent, they would be free to impeach Hillary Clinton if they took back the House in 2022. First of all, I would just say to Kevin McCarthy: Do it. Nothing would make me happier. Impeach Hillary, and let every 2024 swing voter watch as you pay zero attention to their economic concerns and end the impeachment with an obvious acquittal in the Senate. I'm sure single mothers working two minimum wage jobs are really in the mood to see their GOP elected officials in the House focused on impeaching a woman who last held public office over 10 years ago. Second of all, guess what? Last I checked, the House hasn't impeached Hillary, much less Biden yet (I'm actually sorta surprised about the second one). For all the threats of impeachment doomsday for Hillary from the right, there are no results to show for it. Perhaps the same will be true for the threat of rogue Republican prosecutors supposedly pursuing Democrats? Scary idea, but not gonna actually happen!
If a rogue prosecutor in Arkansas actually decided to go after Bill Clinton, or some crazy DA in rural Illinois went after Barack Obama, I would kindly remind Khardori that to indict someone, the District Attorney can't just do it on their own. Last I checked, it actually requires a grand jury of normal human beings, and despite the red hue of Bill Clinton's old home state, I seriously doubt that a majority of jurors would vote to indict Clinton on charges that lack any basis in fact. And if they did, then the case would go to trial, and Bill Clinton's team of excellent lawyers would get an ample opportunity to rip the right-wing DA's evidence limb-from-limb. Unless all twelve jurors living in the former home state of their favorite son Bill Clinton, a state with 16% black residents (and an even higher percentage in Little Rock), agreed to convict, Clinton will never go to jail. Ever.
As the famous proverb of high-school economics goes, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." And if the cost of making sure Donald Trump, and all other politicians like him who arise in the next 10, 25, 50, 100 years, know that when they break the rules, it will not end well for them - are a few baseless indictments of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, I think that's a price anybody, including those men, would be willing to pay for the preservation of our democracy and the rule-of-law. Khardori should be ashamed for having the gall to publish such a pile of garbage.
Comments
Post a Comment