PRESIDENTIAL QUAGMIRE

Prologue: The objective of this post is to not make a political statement but rather just talk criminal law. Also, this is in no way an attempt to sound authoritative about the former President's four pending cases.  

Donald Trump has four cases in four different jurisdictions. There are some dynamics about these cases where a possible interpretation may be that the allegations involve violence, threats of violence, obstruction of justice or other categorizations that prosecutors routinely utilize to ask for pretrial detention or limitations on freedoms while out on bond.  For the good of appearances for this country, and from the perspective of the four powers that be, there may be reasonable apprehensions as to treating a former President as a common criminal yet, how do you explain the [seemingly ] distinguishable manner that Trump has been treated versus how the masses (where most  are comprised of minorities and people of a lower economic status) have always been treated?  

No perp walk, 

no guns being drawn, 

not being cuffed, 

no lengthy bonding out process, 

no enforced rules on pretrial conduct, 

no limitations ?

etc?

If anybody else had such a cluster of criminal litigation covering a spectrum of criminal statutes, as well as an [apparent] display of disrespect and aggression towards the judiciary and prosecution, would they receive the same accommodations? 

Common sense may dictate that treating of a former President in  [as perceived to some as ] an oppressive manner may relegate the Presidential image to that of what many of us look down upon in less sophisticated countries but... how do you explain this to the multitudes that have been treated so much worse? There are prisoners locked up for years just waiting for their day in court. Having pretrial detention severely limits an accused's ability to coordinate, formulate and finance a defense. Think of the people locked up for years that are eventually exonerated. Think of the court that rules "proof evident/presumption great" and then a jury immediately acquits.  There can be, no doubt about it, different standards of justice depending on your social status, size of your wallet and color of your skin.

Judges, prosecutors and correctional officers; what do you say if if an accused remarks, "Why are there different standards of justice? Why can't I be treated like Trump? Why are you cuffing me, you didn't cuff Trump? Why did you revoke my bond...I only have two cases...and they are not crimes of violence?  Frankly, any devoted, justice-minded participant in the criminal justice system, whether you are a judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, correctional  officer or administrator ...this juxtaposition of the "haves" versus the "have nots" should be so very alarming.  Could and should this extreme and unique special treatment be legal precedent for the common defendant?  How can it be ignored ?