Question Time

There's a simple question that I think reporters should ask all elected Republican officials who are suggesting it is "un-American" to indict a former president.  And that's --

Do you believe that a former president should not ever be charged with any crime?

Actually, that’s a question anyone should be asked if they think indicting a former president is supposedly “un-American.”  In fact, I’ve long felt the way do deal with almost discussions one has with extreme-right Republicans.  It's not to debate the points, because it’s near-impossible to convince someone 100% determined not to be convinced, but rather ask questions that require the person to defend their own position.

And so – Do you believe that a former president should not ever be charged with any crime?

If they answer, “Yes, I believe no former president should ever be charged with a crime,” follow-up with – “Just to be clear, this includes not charging any former president if they ever committed espionage, murder, mass murder, arson, armed robbery, assault, rape, white slavery, child endangerment or kidnapping?  Should a former president not be charged with any of that and be totally above the law, completely untouched by any crime they commit?  What about even lesser crimes, like not even getting charged with selling heroin, smuggling illegal aliens into the U.S., or assisting with an abortion in a state where it’s illegal?  What about getting ticketed for reckless speeding in a school zone with children present?

If they instead (or then) answered, “Well, no, a former president can of course be indicted if they actually committed a crime,” follow-up with – “Why then is it ‘un-American’ for a Grand Jury to look at evidence presented to them and then, if they determined that, in fact, crimes were actually committed, democratically vote to indict Trump – let alone, anyone -- for those crimes?

And if a reporter gets the chance, here is a follow-up question to ask: 

Because sitting senators and governors and members of House have been indicted while actually still in office, and a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate has been indicted, and many former senators, governors, and members of the House have been indicted after being out of office, why shouldn't a former president be indicted when out of office?

And a follow-up:  why would that be un-American?

Why is following the rule of law un-American?  Why is doing so even wrong? 

After all, if any American citizen actually, truly, really commits a crime, why shouldn’t that person – whoever they are -- be indicted? 

And if, in the end, you think the charge is not really a legal one, but “just political” and not an actual crime – even after a Grand Jury has weighed all the evidence and voted for an indictment, as the legal process demands – why don’t you think that it should then be up to a trial when the accused is presumed innocent and has a lawyer vigorously advocating their defense, challenging the prosecution on the evidence and putting the entire burden on the government to prove that the legal charge is 100% real beyond even a reasonable doubt, before a jury of the defendant’s peers must decide in full unanimity on whether the person charged is actually guilty, and if not, if the prosecution is unable to prove its case unanimously, then be acquitted?  And why do you believe that that process is “un-American”?

And “Just because” isn’t an answer.

The only real answer is, “Because in a fascist society, that’s not how it’s supposed to work.”