I was struck (as by lightning) by columnist Jon Huer’s column “Between the White House and prison — The case for a national jury,” [Recorder, Aug. 12] in which he proposed that the voters judge Donald Trump in the next election. I would like to rebut several statements he made in that article.

“Clearly all of Trump’s misdeeds to the indictment are ‘political’ in nature, not for the law, and should be resolved ‘politically.’” Further, “we can raise some questions about Trump”s ‘crimes’ that seem to defy common logic. Is it possible to ‘subvert democracy? … there is no such thing as ‘crime of subverting democracy.’”

Donald Trump has not been indicted for “subverting democracy.” That may be the perception of the majority of the population based on the language used by the news media in presenting the “news,” but the facts are otherwise, and that is a good reason why the answer to the question: “does the verdict from 200 million voters feel inferior to that of the 12-person jury?” is decidedly, “yes, it feels vastly inferior.”

The indictments, issued by a grand jury and presented before a judge involved conspiracies to obstruct an official proceeding and defraud voters of their right to have their votes count, charges under actual statutes. The grand jury heard the evidence in support of the charges in secret, as is usual, and the special prosecutor presented the indictment to a duly appointed federal judge. It is the job of the judge, an expert in the law, to determine whether, if the charges are true, any law has been broken. The judge has done so. I do not recognize Huer as an expert in federal law, nor has he heard the evidence; therefore his opinion is worth less than the paper it’s printed on (as is mine).

“Did Trump attempt a coup against his own government? This is … impossible. The dictionary defines coup d’etat as ‘a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a legitimate government’ and ‘he was the legitimate government himself. Donald Trump. was legally elected and constitutionally in charge of the U.S. government at the time.”

First of all, there is no charge of “attempting a coup” in the indictment. Second, Donald Trump was not “the legitimate government himself … constitutionally in charge of the U.S. government.” As any civics student of my generation was taught, the Constitution provides for three equal but separate branches of government. Trump was elected the president, the administrator of the executive branch of the government. He had no authority over the legislative or judicial branches under the Constitution, which assigned the task of certifying the election to the legislative branch, Congress.

“Did Trump ‘command’ the Jan. 6 riot mob? … Trump was not their general.” Again, he was not indicted for commanding the Jan. 6 mob. As to whether he was in any way responsible, that is a legitimate question for the writer’s “dream jury” to vote on in the next election, a thought that fills me with dread. Whether he was directly responsible for the deaths that were caused on that day (my opinion), he had the authority, power, and the responsibility as president to do what was necessary to stop the violence once it had begun, and for hours he did nothing.

Is Donald Trump subject to the laws of this country in the same way as any other person? If not, then there is no equality under the law. That a large number of people refuse to believe that Donald Trump did anything wrong is reason to be thankful that the jury is not made of the electors in the next election (those who are allowed to vote under restrictive voting laws), but 12 properly vetted individuals who will undertake to listen without prejudice to the evidence and make a determination whether the charges have been proven. The judge, as referee, will make sure that the evidence presented is not hearsay or opinion, but factual and relevant, and as nearly as possible, and the trial will adhere, as far as possible, to the ideal of a “government of laws, not of men.”

Judith Truesdell lives in Shelburne.