The title of the David French New York Times column, June 11 (print edition) was "Indicting Was the Right Call."  And how could a Garland/BIden/Smith indictment of former president Trump NOT be a "right call" to a New York Times columnist? (The online title of the French column was "Trump's Misconduct Was Too Brazen Not to Charge.")

Here are two observations on the French column.  He writes, nearing the end of his screed, "that Trump's status as a former president means that he should be treated no better and -- crucially -- no worse than ordinary American citizens or his political peers."   

First, does French have round-the-clock secret service protection?  One would think not.  One would think, further, that French would have to concede that as a former president Mr. Trump is treated rather better "than ordinary American citizens" -- and pursuant to law -- the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, to boot.   [My emphasis.]

French adds that Mr. Trump should be treated no better or worse than "his political peers."   Who are those peers?  Not former secretaries of state. Not former vice presidents.  Pursuant to the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, the political peers of Donald J. Trump alive today are precisely four in number: former Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama.  Accordingly, while no person not being a former president is above the law, federal law confers special protections and benefits to former presidents.     (An argument can well be made that ex-Manhattan prosecutor M. Pomerantz is also above the law, but that is another matter having to do with his display of contempt for the law at his May 12 deposition before the House Judiciary Committee, for which he is yet to be held accountable.)

French clearly dismissed the significance of U.S. law relating to former presidents with this line that concluded his column: but this is a republic, not a monarchy, and if the Justice Department can prove its claims, then Donald Trump belongs in prison."  Along with his Secret Service detail, and office staff and other perks provided by U.S. law to former presidents?  Mr. French, your contempt for equal application of the law concerning former presidents is showing. 

Below the snarky column by David French is a column form a tawdry trio -- Norman Eisen, Andrew Weismann, and Joyce Vance called (print edition) "How Jack Smith Can Win His Case." 

(The online title: "How to Convict Trump")

The bias of this  anti-Trump triumvirate is apparent from its reference to the federal judge assigned the Trump indictment as a "rogue Florida district court judge" for her ruling that a special master should review the documents seized by the FBI in its raid on  Mr. Trump's  Mar-a-Lago residence.  Could this be an attempt by this trio to intimidate the judge into handing Mr. Trump over to the Bureau of Prisons? It is not difficult to envision Eisen or Weismann or Vance howling in political rage at-rulings against the Trump prosecution.

If this troubling trio were  Florida residents and were summoned for service on the Trump jury, it seems to this writer that within a  minute or two of the voir dire, each of the three would be dismissed for cause.  Eisen was special counsel on Impeachment I, the proceeding that falsely charged President Trump with being a threat to national security.  Weissman was the eminence grise to Robert Mueller in his now-discredited probe of President Trump under the false claim of collusion with Russia.   Vance is a former U.S. attorney for Alabama's Northern District, now serving MSNBC as anti-Trump commentator. This Vance quote, from Politico July 2, 2018, expressing her disdain of President Trump would get her excused from the Trump jury before it was read in full: 

“We’ve never had an administration that was so cavalier about following ethics rules or has this sort of focused investigation on the president and his inner circle.” 

The "focused investigation" she praised was the Mueller probe discredited by the Durham Report.

The  Eisen-Weissmann-Vance anti-Trump diatribe ends with an apparent plea for a verdict of “guilty as criminally charged,”  the "alternative" being " too grim to contemplate."  Translation: we shall just have to resume our campaign of insurrection against a re-elected Trump."

The editorial board chimed in with a June 11 editorial, "The Justice Department Had No Choice."  The online title for this, "Donald Trump Should Never Again Be Trusted With the Nation's Secrets," makes one wonder if John Brennan and James Clapper wrote the invidious title, which calls to mind the false charge of the Russia hoax, and Impeachment I's  projection of Biden bad conduct onto Mr.Trump.

Suffice it to observe that where the editorial board writes that the Garland/Biden/Smith indictment of Mr.  Trump raises "the harrowing prospect of a former president facing years behind bars," what the board really means:  "finally, we've got the SOB where we want him."

It is now up to roused Republicans and persons of good will across the homeland to disappoint the true insurrectionists, sending them into paroxysms of political self-destruction.