photo: REUTERS/Daniel Cole

Justice… begins with fairness.

Not fairness for the powerful, or the people we happen to like. Fairness for everyone.

CBS News 24/7 reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez pressed Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche on whether President Trump could involve himself in Justice Department decisions about whom to investigate or prosecute. Blanche responded by pulling out a copy of the Constitution and pointed to Article II, as if that settled the matter.

It does not.

The Constitution gives the president executive authority. It places the Department of Justice within the executive branch. It allows the president to consult with the attorney general about law enforcement, public safety, national security, and the protection of public officials.

But Article II does not give the president permission to turn the Justice Department into an instrument of personal grievance.

That distinction matters in the case against former FBI Director James Comey. Comey was indicted after posting an image of seashells on a beach that read “86 47.” Some interpreted the phrase as a threat against Donald Trump, the 47th president. Comey removed the post, said he did not intend it as a call for violence, and denied wrongdoing.

Threats against any president must be taken seriously. No responsible citizen should minimize language that could be read as encouraging violence, especially in a country already suffering anger and division.

But seriousness is not certainty.

In criminal law, the government must prove more than offense. It must prove that the statement was a true threat, and that the accused understood its threatening nature or consciously disregarded that risk. That standard is high and it should be. Because the power to prosecute is among the most dangerous powers government possesses.

That is where the ethical issue begins.

Justice requires evidence before accusation. A prosecution should never begin with the identity of the target and work backward toward a crime.

Fairness demands that James Comey be treated neither better nor worse because he is James Comey. He should not receive special protection because he once led the FBI. But neither should he become a convenient symbol for a president who has long viewed him as an enemy.

Trump’s repeated attacks against Comey do not automatically make the prosecution unlawful. But they do make the case ethically suspect. When a president publicly denounces a former official, then the Justice Department brings a case against that same official based on language open to interpretation, the public has every right to ask whether justice is being served, or power is being satisfied.

Honesty requires acknowledging both sides. Yes, the president has authority over the executive branch. Yes, DOJ may investigate threats. Yes, no one, including Comey, is above the law.

But honesty also requires saying what Article II does not say.

It does not say a president may direct prosecutors to build cases against political opponents.

It does not say executive power overrides the First Amendment.

And it does not say suspicion can be transformed into proof.

Responsibility belongs to everyone in this chain: citizens who should avoid reckless language, and prosecutors, who must guard their independence, especially from those who wield the power of the presidency.

The real question is not whether Article II allows a president to speak with the attorney general. Of course it does.

The real question is whether that consultation serves the law or bends the law toward revenge.

The Framers created a president, not a king. They gave him power to enforce the law, not to personalize it.

If this case is supported by evidence, let that evidence be tested in court. But if the indictment rests chiefly on presidential anger, and two interpretive numbers in the sand, then it is not merely a weak case… it is a warning.

When justice becomes selective, fairness gives way to retaliation, the Constitution is no longer being defended.

It is being used as a prop.