Attorney general’s dilemma: Whether to indict a former president
It’s become clear that the United States is edging closer to a confrontation that would be unprecedented in the nation’s history: the criminal prosecution of a former president by the administration of his successor.
Newly revealed actions, from subpoenas and search warrants to grand jury witnesses, indicate that the Department of Justice has been quietly forging ahead on a criminal investigation of former President Donald Trump’s inner circle for election fraud and activities linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, say legal experts.
Why We Wrote This
The decision whether to prosecute a former president comes fraught with risk. Not prosecuting could signal that a president is indeed above the law. But a case could feed distrust and establish a dangerous precedent.
It’s highly unlikely that Attorney General Merrick Garland has already decided whether to include the former president in any prosecution, say former prosecutors. He would want first to let his department’s gathering of evidence run its course.
But bits that have emerged – plus testimony from the Jan. 6 committee – show that it is possible Mr. Trump could be indicated, say experts. For Attorney General Garland, the choice may turn on a fraught question: Would such a prosecution be good for the country?
“A healthy democracy does not face this situation, where one administration has to seriously consider a prosecution against the head of the previous administration,” says Rebecca Roiphe, a former Manhattan prosecutor. “I certainly don’t envy Merrick Garland.”
It’s become clear in recent weeks that the United States is edging closer and closer to a confrontation that would be unprecedented in the nation’s history: the criminal prosecution of a former president by the administration of his successor.
Newly revealed actions, from subpoenas and search warrants to the calling of grand jury witnesses, indicate that the