One day, I'll explain to my sons why Donald Trump was charged with a crime.

Well, 34 crimes, to be exact, but several alleged actions of increasing stupidity with just one aim: Hiding from the public his nature as an inveterate creep. Now, true, being a shameless philanderer isn't illegal, nor is paying someone off. But you know what is? Breaking laws, even boring little business fraud laws, to prevent further tarnish on your already poor reputation.

I don't think I'll have trouble explaining the case against Trump, which a New York grand jury found sufficiently compelling to issue an indictment.

But I might have to explain the critics.

Why, my sons could ask, did some conservatives freak out about it? I mean, isn't punishing crime, like, their whole deal?

First, I will explain to my boys that, though there was much Sturm und Drang about what infuriated Trumpites would do in response to Trump's arraignment, nothing serious came to pass. There were no huge protests. Trump wasn't dragged off in chains. The general public reacted with a shrug and a "wait and see." The only real noise came from political windbags.

Additionally, even before the charges against Trump had been unsealed, a large majority — 60%, by one poll — supported the indictment, including 72% of independents.

The results lead one to believe that, perhaps, most Americans either suspected the charges had merit or trusted an impartial jury to determine that.

There were, though, a few noisy conservatives calling into question the charges' validity, saying that they're a kind of crossing-of-the-Rubicon moment from which the Democrats could never retreat.

We're coming after Democratic politicians now, they threatened. We're going to arrest every liberal lawbreaker.

To that, I say: Good!

If Democrats break the law, charge them. Charge them all!

If Joe Biden engages in criminal acts, present a case to a grand jury composed of his peers and get an indictment. Let him hire the best lawyers he can afford to defend himself. Allow him the chance to plead to a lesser crime, if he wishes, or have his day in court and hear a jury's verdict on his guilt or innocence. If he doesn't like the result, he can even appeal!

Frankly, it sounds exactly like what our criminal justice system should all be about.

But there was another subset of anti-indictment-istas, ones who gave a nod and a wink to Trump's behavior. Sure, he might have broken some laws, they seemed to say, but he's a former president, and you can't go around tossing them into prison for petty offenses.

Let he who has not had unprotected sex with a porn star and then later tried to buy her silence, hiding the nature of the transaction and attempting to delay payment until after the presidential election so he could safely renege — well, let that man cast the first stone!

I guess my response would be, OK, hand me the stones.

There's certainly a distinction to be made between immoral and illegal behavior, but Trump's alleged cheating (or even the supposed payoff) isn't the issue.

If he did what prosecutors say and fraudulently reported the payment to cover up a violation of election law, it shouldn't matter how minor the infraction or how powerful the accused.

Thus far, no one has been able to successfully explain to me why the threshold for prosecution should be higher for a former president. Maybe that's because I live in Illinois, where we've prosecuted enough former (and current) elected officials to fill a high school graduating class.

If push comes to shove, I'll tell my kids this: Leniency may be granted but it's never owed. And Trump got as much leniency as he deserved.

What came next was up to the jury, and that was as it should be.

To learn more about Georgia Garvey, visit GeorgiaGarvey.com.

Photo credit: QuinceCreative at Pixabay