Republished with full copyright permissions from The Boston News Tribune.

In the midst of intense partisan battles, it is crucial to step back and impartially consider the implications of ongoing indictments in the political arena. Despite the deafening noise of the competing Republican and Democratic narratives, it is essential to examine whether the prosecutions surrounding Donald Trump are primarily driven by political motivations or grounded in a genuine pursuit of justice.

To embark on a fair assessment, let us imagine a counterfactual scenario where Trump is not running for re-election. This exercise enables us to assess whether the indictments would still be warranted based on the circumstances alone.

To paint this hypothetical picture, envision an election in November 2020, where Joe Biden emerges as the victor. Trump, however, adamantly refuses to accept the election results, engaging in dubious schemes to undermine the democratic process. This culminates in the disturbing events of January 6, 2021, when Trump’s supporters storm the Capitol. Subsequently, on January 20, Biden assumes power, and a resigned Trump retreats from politics, vanishing entirely from the public eye.

In this alternate reality, would Trump have faced indictment?

Resist the urge to leap to an immediate conclusion and ponder this question independently. By isolating this vital inquiry, we can better evaluate the situation.

Upon reflection, it becomes apparent that Trump’s withdrawal from politics could have triggered a chain of events with far-reaching consequences. It is conceivable that without his continued involvement, the January 6 Committee may not have conducted its comprehensive investigation. Thus, the Department of Justice’s subsequent inquiry might never have materialized, and the recent revelations in the indictments might have remained hidden.

Turning our attention to the events of January 6, it is worth noting that a bipartisan Senate committee had already investigated the intelligence failures leading up to the attack and released its report on June 8, 2021. Even in the absence of Trump’s direct involvement, Democrats would likely have pursued a thorough investigation, given the potential to cast blame on the Republicans and generate political advantage.

Delving into the specifics of the indictments, one can reasonably assert that the charges related to Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago would have still been pursued. The imperative to retrieve sensitive national security information withheld by individuals is an established precedent, making an indictment highly likely in Trump’s case.

Regarding the Manhattan District Attorney’s indictment connected to the Stormy Daniels affair, it is crucial to recognize that Michael Cohen had already testified about the alleged cover-up before Congress in February 2019. If there were signs of impropriety in the Trump Organization’s financial records relating to the hush money payments, the DA’s office would have been prompted to investigate during Trump’s presidency. The subsequent indictment, in this case, might have taken a different shape, potentially with misdemeanor charges instead of felonies.

Finally, addressing the federal indictment tied to the January 6 events and the recent Georgia indictment, it is pertinent to consider the alleged involvement of key individuals such as Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and Jeffrey Clark in a scheme to manipulate the electoral process. Regardless of Trump’s active political participation, prosecutors would likely have pursued these cases, driven by the aim of upholding the integrity of the democratic system.

While the surrounding political climate undoubtedly colors the perception of these indictments, it is crucial to understand that they have not been filed purely out of political expediency. Our thought experiment indicates that Trump’s potential indictment would still be a realistic outcome, even in his absence from the political stage.

As we navigate this highly polarized realm, it is incumbent upon us to resist knee-jerk reactions driven solely by partisan loyalties. By engaging in careful analysis and independent thinking, we can foster a better understanding of the complex dynamics surrounding these prosecutions.