Donald Trump’s lethargic speech, announcing that he will run for president for the third time, highlighted something he has in common with the idle clone in Planalto: both need political power to get rid of the xylindró.
But the two malefactors live in different judicial contexts. Trump has spent nearly his entire presidency under investigation and has faced two impeachments with impunity. The fact that he remains free, nearly two years after inciting a violent coup d’état attempt, is a constant source of anger among Americans who prefer to live in a democracy.
Legal analysts believe that the former president can escape justice for the invasion of the Capitol, whose proof of responsibility is difficult for prosecutors to test, although more than 900 people have been indicted for the attack.
But there is beginning to be a consensus that Trump can indeed be indicted for the stupidest crime he has committed, in a long career of illegalities. The theft and concealment of confidential government documents, a decision that resulted in the unprecedented FBI search of Mar-a-Lago’s residence, is an easy case to prove. It is also central to the mission that marked the career of former judge and current attorney general, the cautious and apolitical Merrick Garland.
One of Garland’s mentors was Benjamin Civiletti, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Justice, at a time when the Department was being reformed so that it would never again be used as a president’s personal protection, as it happened under Richard Nixon.
The theft of documents has crucial aspects for Garland to fulfill the promise, made in January 2021, to depoliticize and rehabilitate the Justice Department corrupted by Trump’s secretary, William Barr.
There is evidence, including videos, that Trump lied about the theft, instructed lawyers to lie and obstructed the court process. And he ended up accusing the FBI of planting evidence at Mar-a-Lago. That is, Trump has repeatedly committed crimes against the body with a vast apparatus that includes Justice and national security.
No former American president has been indicted for crimes committed while in office, although, in 240 years of the republic, criminals have lived in the White House. This tradition of impunity was justified by the interest in pacifying the country and protecting the transition of power. It was maintained, under great controversy, in 1974, when the newly sworn-in Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for Watergate.
Even resistant jurists, claiming that one of the pillars of the system is not to use the state to punish political opponents, are beginning to admit that Trump has made the price of maintaining tradition too high.
Garland knows she can’t indict Trump for the wrong reason, which cheers for some form of punishment. The mistake would be to apply Justice to keep Trump out of power because he threatens democracy.
Unlike the venal judge who removed Lula from the 2018 campaign and threw himself into the captain’s arms, Garland knows that her appointment with fate will be painful – condemned and threatened if she indicts a pre-candidate in the campaign, despised by history if he decides what to do. opposite. The decision to indict Trump, based on recommendations made by federal prosecutors, rests with Garland alone. And it’s hard to imagine a public figure in America today lonelier under the weight of a decision.
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
