Trump indicted for attempting to reverse 2020 election results

The Justice Department made history this week by indicting former President Donald Trump on charges of conspiring to reverse the 2020 election, marking the first time a sitting president has been charged with a crime while in office. Now, the legal case will determine whether a former president can be held accountable for his or her actions while in the White House.

On Tuesday, special prosecutor Jack Smith charged Trump with a broad conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, alleging that the former president acted criminally while still in office. Trump faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempted obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

The implications of this historic case reach far beyond Trump, testing a fundamental American legal theory: that no one is above the law. Should Trump be convicted, it would set a precedential landmark that presidents can be held criminally responsible for their actions. Prior to this case, the Justice Department has maintained the long-held belief that sitting presidents are exempt from prosecution, citing concerns that a trial would compromise their ability to do executive branch duties.

But other former presidents, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, have faced the threat of criminal prosecution for their White House activities after leaving office. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator for his Watergate activities in 1974, and Clinton was impeached for his activities related to the Lewinsky scandal in 1998. Both were spared judicial proceedings, however, through plea deals that avoided a divisive public trial.

Trump’s legal team has argued that he was simply performing his presidential duties in questioning the 2020 election, and that he cannot be prosecuted for that. But experts note that this is not the first time the Justice Department has weighed in legal matters related to a sitting president. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a president does not have immunity from civil suits unrelated to presidential duties. More recently, the Justice Department geared up for a federal appeals court to reject Trump’s claim that he is immune from any charges related to instigating the Jan. 6 riots.

As the historic criminal case against Trump progresses, its outcome will be closely watched by citizens across the nation. The significance of the indictment – and Trump’s fate – will ultimately inform our understanding of presidential accountability and stand to either bolster or weaken the guiding principle that no one is above the law.