To Prosecute or Not to Prosecute a Former President?

To prosecute or not prosecute a former president is an interesting debate. There is the rule of law and there is politics. It opens a Pandora's Box because no one should be immune from the law that are passed by a body of people and yet prosecutions should not be part of any politically driven motivations. This is the danger of hyper-politics. Decisions become skewed and people must decide which is more important; law or elected governance (Will one be immune or supersede the other?). Its not an easy decision for anyone to make and there are likely going to be all types of  pit falls in terms of how this could play out (and/or how people think about it.). 

In my fantasy land I feel that if I commit an intentional crime I should be held to account but that bar might be higher in this situation based on the sheer power dynamics involved (Perhaps intentionality might be part of the debate.). In other words, the case would need to be very strong and be public and be logically coherent. You must have a very good case to bring something like this forward. It would need to be clear cut and easy to sell or otherwise you run the risk of failure. Whether one should or shouldn't bring forward the case is not what I'm saying, but what I'm saying is this is going to be interesting to watch and it sends a chill down my spine. Damned if you do and damned if you don't! 

Wow! I don't envy the person who must make decision over this (However, their name and their decision will be a historical moment I'm sure.). Maybe it Should be a Supreme Court choice? I wonder if its possible to let the Supreme Court look at the evidence and decide if the case should go forward or should be dropped. There is a reason why have three branches of government the other two might have something to say about it (I doubt this is how that works and I'm not a political lawyer. I'm more of a philosopher and theorist. History can tell you what happens to philosophers for asking the right questions at the wrong time.😬 Yet history may also define this differently in the future then the way we see it today. Was it justice upheld or justice denied?)

Pericles by Perugina c. 1450-1523

Option 1: If you know someone committed a crime and walked from that crime for fear of political backlash it might damage the entire system and the perspective of people's trust in institutions (Essentially will people feel they/he walked and they/he were supported in that walk? Would it have an impact on the long term viability of the Republican Party and in turn the future Democrat party? Its a risk to think about.). 

Option 2: If you don't know 100% sure someone has committed a crime and the attempt fails there will likely be backlash and retaliation because the law is no longer a deterrent (It would either mean there was no crime or the bar so high to prosecute a crime that the law no longer is a deterrent against future crimes. It could also mean that prosecution can be, or seen as, politically motivated and such retaliation as "justified".). 

What I can say is that if I was supreme judge for a day and had to make a decision I would resent being put in this lose-lose situation and would want to flip the script somehow. What/which is more important, the elected body of people who pass and vote on laws, or the power of individuals that were supported through these legislative networks? Is it a party or country debate? (That is not an opinion on whether or not a crime has been committed or whether or not it should be prosecuted but pointing out some bigger questions that will likely make their way into the history books; either ours or others. I'm recognizing the difficult nature of the question...and not making a public opinion. I'm just outlining the debate.)

Time is the king of all men, he is their parent and their grave, and gives them what he will and not what they crave. Pericles

Read, "Republicans warn Justice Department probe of Trump would trigger political war"