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

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less