The Trump indictment

As alleged, the original crimes seem about as bad as the cover-up.

At this point, there’s almost no offense Donald Trump could commit that would surprise me, so I wasn’t shocked by what I read in the prosecutor’s indictment of the former president. However, what I read persuaded me that, if the allegations are true, Smith probably made the right call in indicting Trump.

I expected to see a strong presentation of the case for obstructing justice, and the indictment lived up to the expectation. But the indictment goes further.

It alleges that the classified documents Trump retained included information regarding the weapons and defense capabilities of the U.S. and other countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the U.S. and our allies to attack; and plans for our retaliation in the event of attack. It further alleges what seems obvious — that unauthorized disclosure of this information could put at risk our national security, relations with foreign countries, and the safety of military and intelligence personnel.

Trump allegedly kept such documents on a stage in the ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, among other places at Mar-a-Lago.

Furthermore, on two occasions Trump showed classified documents to individuals who lacked a security clearance. And to the consternation (I hope) of those who have argued that Trump can declassify documents without using any sort of process, the ex-president admitted on tape that one of the documents he showed to an unauthorized individual was still classified because he had not declassified it before leaving the White House.

The facts alleged in the indictment, if true, take Trump’s wrongdoing far beyond what Joe Biden and Mike Pence did when they removed classified documents. They even take Trump’s mishandling of documents beyond Hillary Clinton’s. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence that Mrs. Clinton ever showed classified information to anyone who lacked a security clearance.

Before I read the indictment, I thought that, although it was a close call, Smith probably had made the wrong decision in indicting Trump. I thought that indicting a leading presidential contender and a former president smacks of banana republicanism. I thought the damage of an indictment to our political system of an indictment, which certainly increases the likelihood of future indictments of presidential candidates and ex-presidents, outweighs the damage to our legal system of not indicting.

That’s no longer my view. If the allegations in the indictment are true, Trump’s behavior strikes me as too egregious to not punish.

As for the likelihood of future presidents being indicted, if what we’re hearing about the ways Joe Biden used public office to enrich himself is true, then maybe his post-presidency indictment would be a feature, not a bug, of indicting Trump. Maybe it’s time, or past time, to break any taboo against indicting presidential candidates and former presidents.

I recognize that indicting a leading presidential candidate and/or a former president makes us resemble a banana republic. But having elected Trump and Biden in succession, we’re already starting to resemble a banana republic. Maybe we should focus on breaking the cycle of presidential criminality — on draining the swamp, so to speak.

Maybe indicting a lawless president or two will send a message to those who hold or aspire to that office — the message that there are limits to the abuses they can get away with.

Maybe it will also send a message to voters, encouraging them to stop electing scoundrels and to focus more on the character of the men and women they select for our highest offices.