OPINION:
The former vice president, Mike Pence, said during a recent NBC “Meet the Press” that he was puzzled how his fellow Republican wanna-be White House chiefs were already marking Donald Trump as guilty of document crimes, when the case hadn’t even gone to court.
Good point. Great point. A point shared by many, many, many others in America.
When it comes to Trump, the legal default seems to be guilty until proven innocent. And the danger of doing that, of course, is that if this is how the former president is treated, then imagine how the average Jane and Joe Citizen will be treated.
A country with a government that presumes its people are guilty is a police state. That’s a country where cameras are placed on every street corner, surveilling every citizen, all the time. That’s a country where individuals accused of crimes and misdemeanors simply disappear during the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. That’s a country where technology is turned into a tool for tracking citizens; where data is scooped and collected and handed to a select few unknowns to control and disseminate, all in the name of national security; where police are trained not so much to protect and serve but to storm and intimidate.
As the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts once wrote, “It’s a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.”
Yes. Because it means that even those who think an individual is guilty cannot treat that individual as guilty — cannot punish, cannot slander or libel, cannot rightly rally others to punish — unless and until that individual is proven guilty. That concept used to be embedded in American society.
Pundits and talking heads and journalists and politicians used to be pretty careful about their public statements regarding individuals accused of crimes or misdemeanors or scandalous behaviors. They used to show a bit of restraint and hold back on calling for someone’s head on a platter even before the matter was scheduled for court. They used to worry about things like improper influencing of jurors — and improper influencing of the public’s opinion.
Trump Derangement Syndrome has really flipped the innocent until proven guilty standard on its head. TDS has made it acceptable — even preferable — to take to national television and talk up Trump’s crimes as if they’ve already been adjudicated and to talk up Trump as a felon as if he’s already been found guilty. They do this by talking out both sides of their mouths, as cowards always do.
“We’ve got to have a full trial here and a fair one,” said Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor, failed presidential contender and now, White House hopeful, on a recent “Face the Nation” interview. “The former president is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the conduct in there is deeply disturbing.”
Wink, wink. Innocent until proven guilty, yes — but come on, guys, we all know he’s guilty.
Other Republicans are just as vicious.
“As a retired brigadier general who worked with classified materials my entire career,” said Rep. Don Bacon, Nebraska Republican, in a recent statement, “I am shocked at the alleged callousness with which the documents were handled. The alleged obstruction to the requests of the National Archives and FBI, if true, is inexcusable.”
Why the shock if it’s only an allegation?
True presumptions of innocence demand much more measured tones.
“[The charges against Trump] are quite serious and cannot be casually dismissed,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, also a few days ago. “Mishandling classified documents is a federal crime because it can expose national secrets. … Anyone found guilty — whether an analyst, a former president or another elected or appointed official — should face the same set of consequences.”
That’s speaking the obvious. But pointing to the false charges and accusations that have been slung Trump’s way by his political opponents and deep state enemies would also be called speaking the obvious — though Murkowski did not opt for that angle. Why not?
Again: wink, wink.
Guilty until proven innocent.
The recent question on the NBC table to Pence was whether or not to pardon Trump for the dozens of charges he currently faces. And Pence, to his credit, said this, as The Hill reported: “Let me say first and foremost, I don’t know why some of my competitors in the Republican primary presume the president will be found guilty. Look, all we know is what the president has been accused of in the indictment. We don’t know what his defense is. We don’t know if this will even go to trial. It could be subject to a motion to dismiss. We don’t know what the verdict will be of the jury.”
We don’t.
Yet many are pretending we do.
And this is a perilous path for a supposedly free nation to walk.
It’s yet a step toward dictatorship — a shift toward a time where laws and orders are what the powers in charge say they are, and courts that don’t do the bidding of these powers are simply bypassed by executive orders, czars, creative bureaucratic constructions or outright bullying and intimidation.
Who needs a Constitution when the pen and cellphone are so much faster? Who needs courts when the press and politicians have already predetermined guilt?
It’s bad enough to treat Trump this way.
It’ll be even worse when it becomes commonplace to treat all Americans this way.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “Lockdown: The Socialist Plan To Take Away Your Freedom,” is available by clicking HERE or clicking HERE or CLICKING HERE.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.