Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: The federal investigation of former President Trump

Your Take: The federal investigation of former President Trump

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


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC.
a group of people standing in front of a building
Photo by Stephen Talas on Unsplash

Supreme Court Restores Flawed Federal Voter‑Check System

On September 22nd, a Supreme Court majority declined to halt the Trump-Vance administration from reinstating a controversial citizenship-verification program that repeatedly misidentified eligible voters as non-citizens.

The ruling, issued on the Court’s shadow docket, lifts a lower-court order that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from using its SAVE database to flag voters for removal. SAVE checks state-submitted information—such as name, date of birth, and sometimes Social Security number—against federal immigration records to determine whether someone is a U.S. citizen. If the information doesn't match exactly or the records are outdated, eligible voters can be incorrectly flagged as non-citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less