Jonathan Kraut is certainly free to criticize the prosecution of David Hearn (Commentary, Aug. 11). In hindsight, there is plenty to criticize. The Justice Department eventually dropped the charge after determining that the damage to the Reflecting Pool was caused by faulty contractor work.
What I don’t understand is how a failed prosecution of Hearn gets turned into another warning about Donald Trump, democracy and the dignity of our national institutions.
Hearn wasn’t a political opponent of Donald Trump. He wasn’t running against him, investigating him, or working for the opposing party. He was an athlete accused of damaging federal property. The accusation didn’t hold up, and the case was dropped.
Yet here, Kraut treats the incident as something much more ominous.
That is especially difficult to square with his reaction to prosecutions under previous administrations.
During the Barack Obama administration, the Justice Department aggressively pursued leak cases, bringing more Espionage Act prosecutions against alleged leakers than all previous administrations combined. It also secretly obtained Associated Press phone records during a leak investigation. Those actions raised serious questions about government power and freedom of the press.
Then, during the Joe Biden presidency, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate Donald Trump, Biden’s political opponent, who was running to return to the White House. Smith brought two federal criminal cases against Trump. The Justice Department also prosecuted former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, who was convicted of contempt of Congress and went to prison.
Those cases were far more directly connected to politics than anything involving David Hearn.
Kraut, whom The Signal has identified as a Democratic Party activist, has been quite clear about his views of Trump. His own words are worth remembering. In his Feb. 1, 2022, Signal column, “How Do I Subvert Thee, Let Me Count the Ways,” he wrote: “Investigations must continue and criminal prosecutions are imminent. The rule of law demands this. Democracy demands this.”
I did not believe the prosecutions of Trump were justified, and I was concerned about the use of government prosecutorial power against political opponents and their associates. Kraut clearly saw things differently.
That makes the contrast clear. When Trump was the target, Kraut viewed criminal prosecution as part of the rule of law. Now a prosecution under Trump goes badly — involving someone who wasn’t even a political opponent — and it becomes part of a larger warning about our country and its institutions.
Where was this level of concern about prosecutorial power when Trump and people associated with him were the targets? People can disagree about whether any particular prosecution was justified. What shouldn’t change is the standard by which we judge the government’s use of that power.
Government overreach should concern us no matter who occupies the White House, and the level of outrage shouldn’t depend on which side of the political aisle is doing the prosecuting.
Arthur Tom
Valencia
