Alma Flesch –
(This piece was originally written in June 2022 as a letter to the editor of the NYTimes in response to the article: After Hearings, A Tenuous Path To Indict Trump)
To the Editor:
As a lawyer, I recognize that in any criminal case the Department of Justice might bring against Trump based on evidence developed so far, success is uncertain. But failure is equally uncertain. Under such circumstances the DOJ should, in its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, weigh the consequences of its decision.
If the DOJ brings criminal proceedings and fails to get a conviction, it loses the case, having used up a great deal of money, much of which has already been spent. That’s it. To be sure, Republicans will accuse the DOJ of partisanship and of conducting a witch hunt. But these are political considerations outside the scope of the prosecutorial decisions of an independent government arm dedicated to law enforcement.
If the DOJ fails to prosecute, the risk is that a dangerous — perhaps the most dangerous — criminal not only “walks,” but “runs” in 2024, thus regaining the ability to perpetrate his crimes against our whole society. Indeed, I write this with trepidation, fearing that Ginni Thomas, like Madame Defarge, will knit my name into a list of Trump enemies for future retribution. The degree of danger to the community certainly should inform prosecutorial decisions, and the danger here is unprecedented.
There is simply no contest between these choices. The DOJ must proceed, come what may. Failure to prosecute would be pure cowardice and a betrayal of its mission.
Alma Suzin Flesch
New York, NY
Well and succinctly put. Are there no limits to treason?