I absolutely agree with you in terms of principles as they should be executed ( no one is untouchable ). I actually agree on the DA part too ( you are responsible for the area you are responsible for ).

However, between limited resources ( we only have X amount of time and money ) and high visibility investigation target that does have resources ( unlike most people in US, can fight back in regular court and in court of public opinion ), it is simply a bad idea to go for a relatively minor charge ( although I suppose we will know more come Tuesday ). The benefit to society is questionable. And DA has to prioritize.

So real question is why he did prioritize this case if that benefit is not entirely clear? And that is the problem I have with this. If the benefit in fact is 'we got him, because we just know he did SOMETHING', that in itself is problematic. It does not reinforce the 'justice is blind' belief. It does the exact opposite.

This is relevant, because, and this is very much a personal opinion, I am worried about where we stand as a society. The general trust in existing structures is already low. I can't reasonably argue this action adds to trust in those structures. In fact, I personally would argue that it does the opposite AND manages to play into existing narrative used by Trump himself ( 'system is rigged' ).

<< It's so weird to me that the people today who are saying "Well what about Bush!!" are mostly those who voted for him twice, at least in my circles.

I am admittedly a little weird in terms of US political landscape, but then I come from EU ( at the time I left, old country had a bunch of small parties, but that has been consolidating lately like in US ).

I don't want to add my voting history into the mix, but I can openly admit I never voted for either Bush, but I could be an outlier here. I just.. would like the rules to be applied uniformly ( and based on your argument, I get the feeling you want the same ).

<< The year is 2023, and before him he has details of a crime.

We go back to the priorities question. Should just about any charge be prosecuted? Would you accept jaywalking? How about public urination?

It is a practical question. Trump is a (1)former president AND (2)current presidential candidate AND a (3)likely presumptive nominee given point#1.

Is that crime worthy of indictment? It is a crime, but is it.. bad enough to make it worth DA's time and money.

And this is how we get to this particular indictment.

Is it bad enough? Public opinion already weighed on it once based on the available leaks so the case better be ironclad.

Like I said. Priorities and the reality of the situation.

edit: I decided to add something I don't typically do here ( add a jokey youtube video mildly aligned with my stance[1] ). It is annoying how well they capture the lines of tension.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCXFCoe2sbc