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

Happy teacher asking girl with hand raised sitting in classroom at elementary school

Trump's education policies are reshaping public schools. Learn how Department of Education cuts, school boards, and local elections could shape children's futures.

Maskot / Getty Images

When It Comes to Our Children’s Education, Trump Gets An ‘F’

When grading a government, there should be no metric more telling than how the kids are doing. It may come as no surprise that they are not doing well–but if the kids are failing, it is because Trump has failed them. The United States has the highest child poverty rate of any wealthy nation, yet the president continues to systematically abandon children: stripping away vital affordability protections, dismantling public education infrastructure, and cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Plus, there’s the ongoing threat of gun violence in schools, the cruel realities facing migrant kids in detention centers, and now new threats to digital safety and youth mental health–an intersectional crisis that desperately requires federal attention while Trump is actively trying to prevent states from stepping up in the meantime. Each of these issues deserves its own op-ed, but today let’s talk about the silver bullet for addressing inequality and building a resilient, inclusive society: public education. Its days may be numbered, but you can help.

In a move characteristically devoid of compassion, President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), mandated that federal funding would be conditional on cutting all diversity, equity, or inclusion programs, and urged Congress to abolish the DOE outright. Following suit, Congress proposed and enacted budget cuts to reduce essential funding for programs supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and otherwise vulnerable populations. The Supreme Court decision to allow mass layoffs at the Department of Education only worsens this crisis, reducing the department’s ability to assist schools during these challenging times. These combined federal actions will have far-reaching consequences for children and communities across the country. School’s out for summer? School might be out forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less