Unprecedented.

It’s the word pundits and political activists have been dwelling on since former President Donald Trump’s indictment one week ago. Some on the leftward fringe gloat with it, Some on the rightward fringe use it to express their outrage.

But is it really unprecedented?

On Oct. 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned the position and entered a no-contest plea on tax evasion charges, accepting his conviction.

Between then and now, the Republican governor of Arizona was convicted of fraud in 1997 and the Democratic governor of Illinois was convicted of lying to federal agents in 2010. Closer to home, a former Pennsylvania state treasurer was convicted of lying to federal agents and a state attorney general was convicted of perjury, both in 2016.

While not common, these are just a few examples of former elected officials who faced prosecution.

None of these prosecutions meant the U.S. had slipped into third-world despotism. None of them meant the perimeters of running and serving in elected office had truly changed. Each one is a part of the historical context for the moment at which we now find our country.

We don’t know whether the charges at the center of this indictment have merit — we believe every American should keep an open mind as the process unfolds. But elected officials have been tried and convicted before. They most certainly will be tried and convicted in the future, both near and far into it. Pretending otherwise — pretending that these charges are truly unprecedented — is a disservice to this history of our justice system holding even powerful, influential people accountable.

— Williamsport Sun-Gazette