A key tenet of the rule of law is that individuals should only be prosecuted for their specific alleged misdeeds — not who they are generally. It’s essential to American democracy that this principle be honored for all potential criminal defendants.

Even Donald Trump.

The former president’s four criminal cases offer an instructive continuum for considering this proposition. In New York, prosecutor Alvin Bragg’s case is an unfortunate example of criminalizing politics. Reaching back to events from seven years earlier, Bragg asserts as part of his case that Trump’s 2016 hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels violated federal election law.

Individuals should only be prosecuted for clear crimes. Without exception. But two things here are manifestly unclear. First, whether the hush-money payments violate federal election law to begin with. And second, whether the New York state law Bragg relies on to charge Trump can be predicated on Trump violating an underlying federal crime, as opposed to an underlying New York state crime.

Prosecutors should not bring outdated cases stitched together by such nauseating legal acrobatics. Bragg is obviously focused more on the man — Trump — than his alleged misdeeds.

The biggest problem here is not unfairness to Donald Trump. We could all live with just that. The real concern is what comes next. There are thousands of local prosecutors in America. What if others pile on? Given the law’s malleability, the extent of potential abuse is virtually limitless. What if a Republican district attorney in Delaware lies in wait for Biden’s presidency to end? Perhaps that’s already happening. What if other prosecutors — from the right and the left — start bending the law to go after presidential candidates from the other tribe? Running for president would become (or perhaps already is) a clear and present danger to one’s liberty.

No nation can long withstand such a specter perennially hovering over its head of state. In 21st-century America, where every partisan wrong must be met with greater opposite force, Bragg’s opening salvo makes this terrifying prospect exponentially more likely.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — also a Democrat — is prosecuting Trump for trying to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election. Trump’s on tape arguably doing just that. On an hourlong Jan. 2, 2021, conference call, Trump pressured Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensburger to rewrite the election results in his favor. “So look,” Trump said, “all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

Willis’ case is very different from Bragg’s. Here Trump’s wrongdoing is both clear and significant. Unfortunately, Willis’ case is far too broad. She indicted not just Trump, but 18 others. Her case sweeps in lots of conduct that shouldn’t be criminalized, as not every dimension of the Republicans’ post-election activity in Georgia violated the law. It’s OK to investigate, protest and stress test election results within the rules; you just can’t try to fraudulently reverse the outcome.

A criminal case requires a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. A more narrowly tailored case focusing on Trump (and perhaps a few others) would have been better.

In Florida, Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith is charging Trump for mishandling highly sensitive and classified documents after leaving office. Smith’s case sits comfortably on the other side of the continuum from Bragg’s: It’s completely justified.

While Trump should not have had the documents to begin with, mishandling classified documents is common. Mistakes happen. Upon receiving the government’s demand to return the documents, Trump should have followed the standard playbook: apologize; cooperate; fix it. True to form, he did the opposite. He doubled down; he refused to cooperate; he jerked the government around. He even ordered his staff to delete security camera footage to cover up his misdeeds.

Finally, in Washington, D.C., Smith also is prosecuting Trump for his behavior surrounding the 2020 presidential election. As the indictment details, Trump “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.”

This case isn’t just proper; it isn’t merely justified; and it isn’t simply necessary. This case is essential. Donald Trump’s malfeasance surrounding the 2020 presidential election was the worst behavior of any president (or former president) in American history. He attacked America’s election system. And in the process he likely broke the law.

Bringing this case against Trump has two overarching consequences. The first is positive: It vindicates the rule of law and sets the precedent that election results must be respected. Given the Trump-led movement among some Republicans to undermine election integrity, deterring future attempts to reverse election results is essential.

The second is negative: This case energizes Trump’s base, which has long believed the American government, including the Department of Justice, is out to get their champion. Highlighting the danger of mixing politics with the criminal law, it may even tip the scales in Trump’s favor this November.

William Cooper is an attorney and the award-winning author of “How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t.”

Newsletter