I don’t have a rock hard position on exactly what sentences would be “morally right” for politicians found guilty of political crimes.
If it were up to me to decide, I think I’d have a difficult time putting politics aside and I don’t think I’m alone in that.
Right now, for example, if you were to ask the American people if Donald Trump was guilty of “crimes against the state” I suspect most of the 50% of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton would be predisposed to say “yes”, while most of the 50% that voted for Trump would say “no”. If you were to ask the same question regarding Barrack Obama - you’d likely get the same split across political lines.
And I’m not talking about cynical partisanship - I’m talking about heartfelt beliefs. The Obama voters simply do not see what he did as a crime. The Trump supporters do not see Trump as commiting a crime.
With that level of predisposition along party lines, just imagine trying to select a jury.
So it’s not that I think political figures deserve leniency, its that I can’t see how they could get a fair trial given the depth of political predisposition toward guilt or innocence.
See, you put “fairness” in our judicial approach for the likes of Hillary, Lynch, Holder, Bill Clinton and on and on at the very tip top of your list of importance.
I don’t think that is the case at all. Juries are ALL a MIXTURE of Democrats and Republicans yet they do RIGHT in trials across this country every day. And, while some fail, I believe most observers think this “mixture” of humans do a pretty good job.
So, yes, elusive “fairness” is an important and lofty “goal”.
But I think the message that this country holds “equal justice for ALL”...... to be Literal...…………….not one level of justice for white male republicans and one for the opposite gender and brown or black skin...………..as more important.