LETTER: Passing judgment before Trump is even indicted
We no longer have to wait for evidence before rendering a verdict, or so says the Review-Journal’s Victor Joecks (March 21 column). We can know to a certainty if a case is valid before the indictment is even issued, let alone tried. Thus, the case against Donald Trump is phony, without even having to see what it is.
Furthermore, Mr. Joecks says bringing law enforcement to bear against a major political leader is un-American — “what one expects from banana republics.”
Yeah, like Italy, France, Portugal or Germany — all of which have found it is good to hold leaders and former leaders accountable.
It is an odd thing to hear from the “lock her up” crowd or those calling for the prosecution of the president’s son that it is politicization gone amok if Trump is charged for a crime everyone admits he committed.
There’s a way we Americans like to proceed to tell if charges are valid. They get tested in a court of law, before a jury. Members of the jury hear evidence and argument from both sides, and only afterward do they render a judgment. Mr. Joecks apparently believes in some other system of justice, and I believe he owes us an explanation of what it is.
