How to Think About the Trump Indictment: Readers Debate

Seemingly oblivious that his conversations are being documented, Mr. Trump habitually provides fodder for his opponents’ attacks and sabotages himself with his words and actions.

Charles D. Eden

Atlanta

I take umbrage with the argument that the Justice Department shouldn’t have indicted Mr. Trump. Justice requires that all citizens be treated equally. In this case, the Justice Department went above and beyond to allow the former president to avoid prosecution by giving up the documents. He refused. It didn’t have to come to this, but Mr. Trump wanted it to be adversarial. Now, he can take his case before a jury of his peers—just as it should be in a democracy.

Col. Lawrence G. Karch, USMC (Ret.)

Gainesville, Va.

You observe cogently that the Biden-Garland indictment will have consequences for our democracy that are “far graver than the previous indictment by a rogue New York prosecutor.” But the two prosecutions share an important similarity: Both allege victimless crimes. Neither one alleges harm to others for personal gain.

The situation would be far different if, for example, this latest indictment alleged that foreign states had accessed the documents, or that Mr. Trump exploited those documents for a corrupt, financial purpose. Absent allegations of harm, however, the indictment portrays potentially serious criminal acts lacking any victims—other than the American electorate and its sovereign right to select its leaders without the heavy hand of the government weighing on its choice.

Steven Sarfatti

Cabin John, Md.

According to the indictment, Mr. Trump stored dozens of classified documents in a ground-floor bathroom that was accessible by a sometimes open door to the Mar-a-Lago pool patio. It would have been a piece of cake for a Russian spy to have accessed these documents among the throng of people at the resort. Mr. Trump’s reckless disregard for the law is worse than President Biden’s and should be prosecuted.

Cleveland

In “A Strong Indictment—but Is It Strong Enough?” (op-ed, June 12), Alan Dershowitz suggests that special prosecutor Jack Smith may “have wanted to distinguish Mr. Trump’s case from those of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Mike Pence, none of which allegedly involved willfulness.”

Mrs. Clinton went out of her way to set up a personal server in an unsecured location and, as secretary of state, exchanged classified emails on that server. Then, seemingly to cover up her wrongdoing, she erased 30,000 emails from the server. In my view, there is ample evidence of willfulness on Mrs. Clinton’s part.

Bob Brown

Billings, Mont.