Shortly after Donald Trump lost his bid for a second White House term, I remember having a conversation and saying: “Now that Trump and his administration are out of office, we’ll really see what they were up to and finally hold them accountable.”
Now, as I watch the world, I can’t help but feel that Donald Trump will simply skate by with little to no consequences. As I pondered this, something struck me; a simple yet loaded question: Why will the United States not hold Donald Trump accountable?
It seems unthinkable that somebody could break so many laws and face so little repercussions in a nation that often touts the so-called founding principle that nobody is above the law: From the common peasant man to the highest office in the land.
Except, that’s not what we’re seeing. What we’re really seeing is an elastic justice system that bends and stretches—or in some cases completely severs—those founding principles depending on who the defendant is. We are seeing and confirming, with our very own eyes and ears, that there really are two justice systems in this country.
In one system—the one you or I would go through—we are quickly punished and held accountable for our actions with little regard for the circumstances or nuance of who you are. Judges are more than happy to hand out fire-and-brimstone sentences to supposedly discourage others from taking the same actions.
In the other system—the one Donald Trump and others like him go through—the exact opposite seems to be true. Judges in these cases twist and distort the law to such an extent that in the end, they don’t even litigate the actual case in front of them.
Take the recent immunity case before the Supreme Court: Donald Trump’s actual crimes didn’t just take the back burner, they were completely removed from the stove.
The justices in the majority opinion didn’t simply declare within the scope of the case that Trump couldn’t be prosecuted for specific actions, they instead entertained some unhinged hypotheticals about an attack on presidential power that resulted in absolute immunity for presidents.
In short: they invented a new power of immunity that didn’t exist. It didn’t exist in the Constitution and it didn’t exist in any United States laws or codes. So, why did they do this?
One could argue quite succinctly that it was done in favor of Donald Trump; that the justices in the majority were showing their bias for their party’s candidate, but I don’t think that tells the whole story—I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t foresee this double-edged sword.
No, the reality is that America has always had an aversion to holding high-profile public servants accountable.
It’s Been This Way For a Long Time
Back in 1865, at the end of the Civil War, the Confederate States of America were led by then-president Jefferson Davis. He was responsible for assembling the South’s armed forces and the procurement of weapons.
This man literally outfitted an entire half of the country with the means to carry out the largest insurrection ever seen by this nation.
When the fighting was all said and done, and the Union had been victorious, Jefferson Davis was naturally charged with his crimes. He would be sent to prison, but was quickly given leniency.
In May of the year he was caught and confined, he would be held with a full guard and in fetters. By September, he was living in a four room apartment with his wife Varina. After two years of “imprisonment”, he was released on bail, and eventually fled to Canada.
Davis remained under indictment until 1868 when President Andrew Johnson pardoned all remaining insurrectionists. His case never went to trial.
Many years later, President Richard Nixon would also have a similar run of events. After his administration was implicated in a break-in at the Democratic National Committee building, and a long protracted trial making its way to the Supreme Court, Nixon would resign the office. Shortly after, he would receive a pardon from President Ford. His case also ultimately never fully played out, despite the Supreme Court ruling against Nixon on the case.
It’s truly hard to argue that America doesn’t have a pattern of pardoning criminals in the second justice system simply because of who they were—or more precisely: the offices they held.
Donald Trump’s January 6th case is just the latest in a string of similar cases.
Encouraging Official Abuse
American’s inability to hold these people accountable really only does one thing: It encourages others to elevate themselves to offices of power in an effort to benefit oneself. After all, why simply break the law when you can just be above it?
The scope of the Executive Branch’s power is vast: This branch controls damn near every agency in this country; it controls the various branches of the military; and has total impunity over the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
How on Earth did the justices grant this powerful branch total immunity? Instead of doing their proper duty of balancing and maintaining the separation of powers, they are complicit in supercharging its potential for abuse.
Instead of upholding the premise that all men are created equal, they’ve carved out a subsection of “special” humans that can wield an enormous power with absolutely zero risk of being held accountable.
It’s not hard to dream up a myriad of ways in which the Office of the President of the United States could be used solely in its official capacity by an individual maliciously, and for them to simply portray their actions as official acts.
This is not the natural order of things in this country. The framers certainly never intended to put this much power in a single person—it was literally their antithesis.
So alas, I no longer believe that Trump will ever be held liable or accountable for his actions, no matter how overtly those actions broke the laws of this nation.
The best we can hope for at this point is that this case finally breaks this camel’s back and some real, enforceable changes happen such as an ethics code for the Supreme Court, and perhaps even a Constitutional amendment to declare no office in this nation above legal reproach and the reach of the people.
