What timing! Earlier this week we asked the following questions of our Fulcrum community regarding the socio-political conundrums that could result from the federal prosecution of former presidents and other elected officials. We asked:
- How legally accountable should we hold our highest elected officials for their actions during and after their terms? Can those responsible for deciding be truly impartial?
- Does the prosecution of a former president politically weaponize the Justice Department?
This inquiry was spawned by the self-reported and now confirmed news of the pending arrest of former President Trump, who is being investigated for various crimes both during and after his time in office. There exists a growing fear on both sides of the aisle that the outcome of any federal investigation will yield bad fruit; with the lines between misconduct and crime continuing to blur, there seems to be no way to avoid the political enigma swirling around this issue.
The intensity with which those engaged offer their perspective is an indicator of the pivotal crossroads to which this investigation has brought us. Agreement is sparse. But the importance of how our justice system proceeds will be a poignant signal to the current state of American law. And even while many disagree on this issue, one common theme remains: justice is and always will be of paramount importance. The only problem is, whatever justice may be, none of us may be ready for its consequences.
Here is a sample of your thoughts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.
Our officials should be fully accountable for any action they commit. They are citizens first. [The Justice Department] is doing their job of prosecuting illegal actions, no matter the person being prosecuted. - David James
Elected officials should be held as accountable as any other person charged with criminal activity. A cross-section of citizens should be able to try any case as impartially as any other person. - Dan Wall
No one should be above the law. Felonies should be prosecuted. Supporters of the accused will make the claim that prosecuting a former president weaponizes the Justice Department. But alleged crimes must be investigated and, if supported by evidence, charged and prosecuted. - William Hunn
Actions post term should be prosecuted like anyone else. Actions during their term should only be for direct actions against our country, another country or our government. - Deb Porter
Totally accountable. If our highest elected officials are not held completely accountable for their actions, then "equal justice under the law" is just a fairytale we Americans tell ourselves. - Mary Friesan
Those who are responsible for deciding on the issues of legality and accountability also represent we the people and are tasked with upholding the laws. This is their job description. If they cannot fulfill their duties, they should not be in that position. - Kim S.
If there is a clear case of Presidential misconduct (or post-Presidential misconduct), then "No man is above the law" should be the clear rule of the day. This is not political. This is a matter of the law of the land. - Donna Kuck
The simple answer is that EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions. But the sad truth is, in America, there are multiple tiers of justice, especially for the rich and the political/media class. - Randy Ricks
Impartiality is a concern for any and all judgements against citizen Jane Doe, or against celebrity public figures. But, [prosecuting a former president] is no more than prosecuting my neighbor, John Doe, for committing a felony. - John Christian Caldwell
If a crime has been committed and the person is found guilty they should be punished like anyone else and his or her political belief should not be used to distract the real issue. Guilty or innocence of a crime is the real issue. - Ron Tobias
[The prosecution of a former president] weaponizes the Justice Department to some degree, but too bad. We live in a polarized time. If this were a Democrat, Republicans would be all over this like spots on dice. - Nance Allen
The Justice department is not being weaponized. The court will determine if the charges are proven to be true. - Michele Risa
I love this country and I love our government but to have one man sit there and allow them to break the law is not the path to democracy. - Machelle Webb
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.