The quiet campaign to not hold "the former president" accountable.
Bill Barr may have been the first to say the evidence was there but he didn't think the former president should be indicted. To top it off, he said it on FOXNews.
Since then, we have heard the whispers and the rare mention on cable news that it might not be good for the country if the former president is indicted. It would divide the country even further, they say.
It's almost as if Americans have become divorced from common sense? If there is one person in this country that should take care that the laws are faithfully executed, it is the President of the United States.
It has become nothing more than a political exercise. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones and obstruction of justice because of his sexual affairs. He was impeached for them. The Republicans would have indicted and convicted him if they had been able.
But common sense needs to dictate how Presidents and former presidents are treated by the law. If a President is accused of a minor crime while in office, such as over-looking thousands of dollars in taxes or an illicit sexual affair, that should not call for an indictment.
However, if a President brazenly attempts to overthrow the government and steals the most sensitive documents in our Intelligence, then that is a different matter. The American people can distinguish between the two. The US Congress should be able to tell the difference?
Common sense should guide us on whether or not a President or former president should be indicted for criminal acts. The acts of Bill Clinton were not equal to the acts of Donald Trump. He should be indicted and convicted.
The debate should not be about whether or not to indict but whether or not to call for life in prison or the death penalty.
= new reply since forum marked as read
If he is not indicted and punished. 
