No, the Trump indictment isn’t historically unprecedented — and it’s a crucial step | Opinion

What the American nation experienced this week was not so much the indictment of a former president of the United States, but the deconstruction of a nation.

In the past, Donald Trump has been a larger-than-life personality with a reputation as being a high-risk businessman with as much failure as success. He made himself a media personality with his books, cameo film appearances and his own television show. Yet his single term as president of the United States was filled with serious setbacks in international diplomacy, environmental protection, legal and economic issues, among others, and he was defeated by a large popular vote margin in 2020.

The former president has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. What makes this case of note is that at the heart of it is money — specifically money from a company whose CEO was allegedly using its assets for purposes other than business — hush money payments to two women whose allegations would have been detrimental to his bid to be America’s chief executive. Thus, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is prosecuting the former president for serious business fraud and misappropriation of company funds.

Now some historical perspective.

First, contrary to many news media reports, Trump is not the first American chief executive to be indicted. On March 1, 1974, Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski received a report from prosecutors to Congress that a federal grand jury had returned an indictment of then-President Richard Nixon for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. However, it was circumvented when Jaworski declined to pursue it and President Gerald Ford provided Nixon with a blanket pardon.

Also, actions by candidates to thwart potential scandal prior to a presidential election are not unique. Weeks before Election Day 1988, GOP presidential nominee George H. W. Bush was confronted with the failure of Silverado Savings and Loan, a financial institution whose chief financial officer was his son, Neil Mallon Bush. The then-vice president made phone calls to Treasury Department officials and banking regulators to stall the bank’s closure for 45 days, until after the election.

Candidates attempting to tamp down potential sex scandals before a presidential election are not unique, either. Multiple past U.S. presidents have had extramarital affairs: James Garfield, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, to name but a few. However, none match the mess created in 1920 by the longtime tryst between Warren Harding and Carrie Phillips, the latter of whom successfully blackmailed the Republican Party.

So what makes the case of Trump different? It goes to the heart of government in several ways:

The first is the framers’ charge to the American people not only to hold their public servants accountable for their actions, but also to use their intellect rather than their emotions in choosing leaders.

The second is that a nefarious man who has used his own business funds for personal reasons is likely to do the same if elevated to public office.

The third is the nature of political parties — in this specific case, a party that would elect a known white-collar criminal to high office rather than lose an election.

The fourth pertains to the quality of leadership expected not only of the person elected to office, but of those who have helped elect that person.

That Trump remains a powerful political figure is proof positive that Americans live in an era when political party affiliation is of greater importance than the rule of law or quality of governance. Keeping a bad government that bears our party’s label in power is more acceptable than holding its leaders accountable for their unconstitutional actions and removing them.

It has often been said that a country gets the leaders it deserves. Therefore, if we truly believe we deserve better, then it is we the people who must make the concerted effort to elect better officials — and then hold them accountable to their promises. And so, I applaud DA Bragg for doing the latter.