In 1872, president Ulysses S Grant was stopped by a police officer for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage in Washington.
The officer held out his hand to signal him to stop, Grant complied, then escorted the officer to the police station.
Did that detract from the presidency?
No, I would say it was a beautiful tribute to democracy.
What was unthinkable for the French Sun King, Louis XIV – “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the State”) – is appropriate in a system of equality before the law.
The New York Times reports that a grand jury voted to indict Donald Trump for surreptitious payments of money to a porn star, but that the indictment is, for now, sealed.
There are legitimate questions about this particular allegation, and while we don’t know the details of the allegations, after careful guesswork, we do ask:
Should the first indictment against a former president be based on a new legal theory that could be rejected by a judge or jury?
What do we make of doubts about this case even among those who have no sympathy for Trump?
Does DA Alvin Bragg know what he’s doing?
None of us can be sure of the answers to these questions until we see the evidence presented at trial, and I fear a failed prosecution could strengthen Trump.
But I would also worry — even more — the message of impunity that would be sent if prosecutors looked away because the suspect was a former president.
Michael Coenthe former president’s go-between, was sentenced to three years in prison for doing Trump’s bidding, and a fundamental principle of justice is that if an agent is punished, so should the principal.
It’s not always feasible and it can be difficult to replicate what a federal indictment achieved in Cohen’s case.
But the goal must be justice, and this prosecution lives up to that goal.
This is especially true because this is clearly a more serious offense than a typical case of forgery of business documents; the goal was ostensibly to influence the outcome of a presidential election, and it may have happened.
When Trump is arrested, he will reportedly be fingerprinted, photographed and possibly handcuffed.
The question arises:
Is it humiliating for a democracy to prosecute a former leader?
The democracy most experienced at arresting former leaders is South Koreawho persecuted acfive former presidents and which I have covered on and off since I was Hong Kong bureau chief of The Times in the 1980s.
A former president was sentenced to death in 1996 for his role in a massacre during the military dictatorship.
His successor was sentenced to 17 years in prison for similar offences.
Another former president committed suicide in 2009 while under investigation over a corruption scandal.
His successor was sentenced to a total of 17 years in prison for corruption.
And the next president, in office from 2013 to 2017, was sentenced to a total of 25 years in prison for crimes such as corruption and abuse of power.
There were times when I thought this parade of trials was a sign of political immaturity.
However, maybe I got it the other way around.
Yes, South Korea in the 1990s was an immature democracy prone to corruption, but those prosecutions helped strengthen South Korean democracy.
“It’s not easy for Koreans to try our former presidents,” says Jie-ae Sohn, a communications professor at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.
“It’s a painful process that we don’t like to show the rest of the world.
However, this trial has made it abundantly clear that the Rule of law It applies to everyone.”
“This process may be ugly,” Sohn added, “but we believe it strengthens our democracy and allows it to be more resilient.”
There is a counter-argument that this is America’s time for prosecutorial discretion to allow the country to recover and move forward.
As a teenager, I was outraged when the president Gerald Ford ipardoned the former President in advance Richard Nisson, but over time I have come to believe that it was the right decision and that it allowed the country to recover.
However, there is one obvious difference:
Nixon, in 1974, was already completely discredited, ostracized and bankrupt, while Trump denies all wrongdoing and is a candidate again for the White House.
South Korea can offer a model for promoting both the rule of law and healing.
Although former presidents received harsh sentences there, they were all pardoned and released within a period of from one to four years.
It’s hard for me to gauge the strength of the Manhattan District Attorney’s case against Trump at this point, but I find inspiration in the words of William H. West, the police officer who pulled over Grant for speeding.
According to a story he made many years later, collected by The Washington PostHe told Grant:
“I am very sorry, Mr. President, to have to do this, because you are the head of the nation and I am nothing but a policeman, but duty is duty, sir, and I will have to put you under arrest.”
This is the majesty and dignity of our legal system at its best.
Source: Clarin
Mary Ortiz is a seasoned journalist with a passion for world events. As a writer for News Rebeat, she brings a fresh perspective to the latest global happenings and provides in-depth coverage that offers a deeper understanding of the world around us.