Trump’s indictment was good for American democracy

By Avery Noel

When a Manhattan grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump, many right-wing news outlets argued the indictment was purely political, an attempt to harm his chances in the 2024 presidential race and in no way based in fact or law. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene even compared the indictment to the persecution of Jesus Christ.

Once again, Republicans have shown their undying loyalty to a disgraced figure. In reality, the indictment of Trump is necessary for democracy, but it also serves as a boost to the president’s primary campaign within the Republican Party; in addition, the indictment is based in both fact and law.

The indictment of Trump is a good thing for showcasing the strength of the American democratic system. Under a democracy, it is important that no one is able to resist the law through force, wealth, or power. In spite of his status as a former president, Trump is not above the rule of law, and this indictment proves that. This should serve as an example to others who seek to usurp the justice system through intimidation or other means.

Some have suggested that this political prosecution may open up the door for the prosecution

Michigan’s ‘right to work’ law should not have been repealed

of Democrats in red states. If, as in Trump’s case, there was evidence that presidents Clinton, Obama, or Biden had committed felonies, I would also hope that they would be aggressively prosecuted. To reiterate, no one should be above the law in a democratic nation. Unfortunately for Republicans wishing to exact political revenge, no such evidence has been found.

Trump’s indictment, while it will hurt him in the general election, will also serve as a boost to his Republican primary campaign. As has been noted in the “Campus Speaks on Trump’s Indictment” piece in this publication on April 6th, some believe that Trump’s indictment will allow him to present himself as a martyr to Republican voters. Because of this indictment, Trump will be able to promote himself as someone so against the political establishment that he served jail time for it. While Trump was already the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, this indictment may push him even further over the top.

Trump’s indictment is not a political prosecution; the legal maneuver utilized by District Attorney Alvin Bragg is an attempt to find justice through the proper means. As stated by Bragg, “[u] nder New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business defraud, intent to conceal another crime.” Bragg would not have pursued the charges without believing there was at least credible evidence that a crime had been committed, and to suggest otherwise would be absurd.

According to a recent piece written by NPR, the indictment is a culmination of investigation into the former president’s bribery of Stormy Daniels, the former porn star paid to keep quiet about sexual encounters with Trump, especially evidenced through the connected guilty plea of Michael Cohen, a former Trump lawyer who alleged multiple campaign finance violations. In this case, it is clear that there is too much evidence for the DA not to pursue prosecution.

More than political motivations have played into the prosecution of Donald Trump. Bragg found significant evidence showing the possibility of campaign finance violations and, in accordance with his job description, pursued the prosecution of potential crimes. Such a prosecution is important for the state of our democracy, to show that the rule of law is a principle which applies equally to all, no matter their wealth or power.

Avery Noel is a junior studying economics.

Yorker reporter. Davis has contacted Green about the misquote. We don’t run this college because God needs us to. We dedicate ourselves to virtue for the misquoted reason Ols mentioned: God demands it.

Perhaps a better article would be why so many people flock to Hillsdale as the place to learn that virtue—and why our students have such impressive professional and personal track records. Analyzing the politics of Hillsdale is worthless without first considering why the school exists. We welcome Green to join us again soon, hoping she quotes the next convocation with listening ears.

Haley Strack is a senior studying politics and journalism.

By Christina Lewis America prides itself on free speech. But when it comes to

unions, Michigan

Whitmer

Gov. Gretchen and the Democratic majority in Michigan’s legislature do not believe people should enjoy this right.

The “right-to-work” law, simply put, gave workers the choice of paying union dues instead of coercing them to do so. The law not only benefited Michigan’s economy, but it also benefited workers and unions.

Paul Moreno, professor of history, explained in an interview how Michigan, once a very strong union state, passed the “right-towork” law.

“Michigan was the home of the United Auto Workers and really one of the most strongly organized states in the union. So the idea that they would become a ‘right to work’ state was sort of laughable,” Moreno said. “But then in 2010, the state had become increasingly Republican and I think mostly a recognition that it’d be good for job creation. Employers like to start new businesses in ‘right-to-work’ states that don’t have to deal with the extra costs of unions.”

Less than one year after people celebrated the 10th anniversary of Michigan’s “right-to-work” law, Whitmer signed legislation repealing it.

Though some may argue that the repealing of Michigan’s “right-to-work” law will benefit unionized workers as it may result in better contracts for the workers since there is more accountability, the benefits will likely only be short term.

Christopher Martin, associate professor of economics, explained the long-term consequences of the law getting repealed.

“There are arguments and evidence on both sides of this issue, but I think the case is pretty strong that the ‘right-to-work’ repeal will discourage new businesses from locating in Michigan or existing businesses from investing or expanding,” Martin said. “Employment and income growth will tend to be slower in Michigan than it would have been otherwise.”

Now that the “right-towork” law is gone, people in the private sector can be required to pay union dues if their employer is part of a union. If they refuse to do so, they can legally be fired. Unions often become political platforms for workers to express their political affiliations. This means that workers may be required to pay dues to a union they do not even agree with.

The “right-to-work” law benefited unions as well because the law kept unions in check. In a 2014 Washington Post article, former southern region director for the United Auto Workers, Gary Casteel, said the “right-to-work” law keeps unions accountable. Casteel argued that when workers are given the freedom to choose if they want to commit to a union’s views, workers that do choose to commit allow unions to be more effective.

Michigan’s “right-towork” law allowed for the state to benefit economically, workers to get the freedom to choose what unions to join, and even for unions to be more effective. The rights Americans hold dear should not be up for grabs.

Christina Lewis is a freshman studying the liberal arts.