Should only one side play by the rules?

The legal noose is tightening around Trump. A few observations:

1. I don't know what Trump opponents hope to accomplish. If the end-game is forcing him to resign, legal threats are counterproductive. To my knowledge, a sitting president can't be indicted. He can only be prosecuted after he leaves office. By building a criminal case against Trump, they are giving him a disincentive to resign. Since he enjoys legal immunity so long as he's in office, they are giving him a powerful incentive to finish out his first term, run for reelection, and run out the clock. It may even be possible for a president to pardon himself on the way out. So what's the point? 

Technically he might try to cut a backroom deal with Pence, but that's unenforceable. If he resigns and Pence takes over, he has no leverage over Pence. Moreover, there's no presumption that Pence would win in 2020. So why take the risk?

2. Trump poses a moral challenge for conservative ideologues. Is it possible to support the Trump administration when it does good things without becoming morally complicit in his misconduct? This is an issue raised by Ben Shapiro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61WDeLVjXA

On the one hand, there's the danger of moral drift. Do we keep adjusting our standards to excuse Trump? There's the danger of resorting to one compromise after another. 

3. Insofar as Trump may have broken the law, that seems to go back to his previous career as a private businessman. Some of Trump's shady business practices are catching up with him. That's fair game. But thus far I don't think he's broken any laws as president. 

4. While Shapiro makes some good points and raises some valid concerns, his own position fails to draw some necessary distinctions. In this post I'll fall back on some principles I've articulated before Trump ever threw his had into the ring. So this isn't me reinventing my ethics in the Trump era. For instance:

i) I did this post two months before he even announced his presidential bid: 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/04/counter-cheating.html

ii) Most of my posts about deception antedate the Trump candidacy. 

iii) During the Bush 43 administration, I objected to treating terrorists like POWs. I pointed out that the laws of warfare are based on reciprocity. 

iv) Likewise, I cited the salus populi suprema lex principle.  

5. All things being equal, the rule of law is very important. But that's not absolute. Maybe Shapiro is using "law" as a shorthand expression. Take so-called campaign finance "laws". Aren't some of these actually regulations promulgated by the FEC? 

If so, we have a huge problem with the regulatory state, where Congress abdicates its responsibility, giving Executive agencies a blank check. That subverts the democratic process. Rather than elected lawmakers answerable to the voter, unaccountable Executive bureaucracies become rogue dictatorships. 

In addition, it's my impression that some (many? most?) campaign finance "laws" violate Constitutional free speech. Not to mention rubbery laws. 

6. There's a standard distinction between laws of morality and laws of utility. We need to distinguish between moral norms and legal technicalities. And even in the case of moral norms, there are priorities. Not all moral obligations are equally obligatory, and sometimes duties conflict. 

We can never justify wrongdoing, but that's not equivalent to law and policy. For instance, consider the California law that punishes employees with imprisonment if they refuse to use the transgender speech code. Or consider the bill working its way through the Sacramento legislature to crack down on churches that don't capitulate to the LGBT agenda. There's nothing morally sacrosanct about those laws. 

7. It's harebrained to play by the rules if the other side routinely breaks the rules to win. That's a recipe for unilateral disarmament. At that point the rules subvert their original rationale. Imagine playing by the rules when you know the opposing team bribed the referees? Why play at all under those conditions? Why go through the motions? 

8. Under Obama, agencies like the FBI and DOJ tried to rig the election for Hillary. And there's a continued effort to sabotage the will of the electorate. They refuse to accept the fact that Trump is the duly elected president. They use any means at their disposal to nullify the elections results. To disenfranchise Trump voters. (And I didn't even vote for Trump.)

There's no obligation to cooperate with that agenda. This isn't ultimately about fighting for Trump but fighting for our Constitutional liberties. Defending majority rule and the consent of the governed.