On April 4, former President Trump surrendered at the office of the Manhattan district attorney in New York City before being arraigned in the Manhattan Criminal Courts Building. Wherever you sat on the political spectrum, this was an astonishing moment — for the first time, an American president had been charged with a crime.
Where does this point us? President Trump’s indictment could prove a painful but needed check on our political system. Yet there already are signs that it will test the strength of our republic, feeding division and dysfunction.
We asked Monitor readers on Facebook how they were processing this moment. Did folks agree or disagree with the prosecutors’ action? More important, what now? How does the nation best navigate this? How can we avoid further polarization and preserve democratic efficacy?
Here’s how readers responded:
One thing is for sure, we are already such a divided nation. And events like this only make it worse. The amount of money that has been wasted going after this man is probably unfathomable!
If he wasn’t a candidate, this would have never happened.
There has to be a reason his opponents are so scared of him — and remember, what goes around will come around!
Erik Enquist
Boulder
One of the tenets of a democracy is that no one is above the law. To preserve our democracy and bring us out of banana republic actions, it is imperative that he be charged for the crimes the grand jury had found probable cause to indict him on. The case should move forward as it would for anyone.
But we should all stop watching 24-hour media and not get pulled into the whole spectacle that the media and former President will create. Once we see that no one is above the law, we can hopefully move past this.
Jeanie Thiel
Boulder
It’s obvious that disinformation is the primary driver of our current political polarization. One side of that spectrum is nurtured by [Fox,] a “news” network so absolutely devoted to lying that it has won slander lawsuits based on the fact that no reasonable person would believe what its on-air personalities say.
More recently, the same network lost a motion for summary judgment because the pretrial evidence clearly showed that everything it broadcast about a voting machine company was a lie.
Absent meaningful introspection by those who believe what such inveterate liars tell them, there will be no change.
Jeremy Craft
Boulder
