When rulers turn on those asking too many questions

The US President’s online broadside against the late Robert Mueller, after his passing on March 20, 2026, highlighted the extreme opprobrium endured by those tasked with holding a sitting ruler to account, even beyond the grave. 

Mueller, a respected war hero, lawyer, and public servant, was admired across party lines for his competence and nonpartisanship. Yet his service as Special Counsel during the thorough ‘Russiagate’ investigation exposed him to political pressure and public criticism from Trump’s camp, and others’ failed attempts to smear him for sexual misconduct.

Trump’s remarks are particularly striking given that he was not exonerated by Mueller’s report. They also reminded the public that the US President’s leading ally in the current Iran conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is still on trial for corruption. Like Mueller before her, Netanyahu’s prosecutor Liat Ben-Ari has faced harassment and threats to her life and family, necessitating bodyguards.

Media pundits have linked this treatment of prosecutors to a worrying erosion of democratic norms. A look back at history provides perspective on this concern.

In January 1649, King Charles I of England was put on trial after his tyranny toward Parliament sparked a civil war that ended with his defeat by Oliver Cromwell. Despite his defeat, Charles repeatedly broke agreements with Parliament, leading to his trial for treason and execution by beheading - a radical act that temporarily turned England into a republic. After Cromwell’s death, Parliament restored the monarchy under Charles’ son, Charles II, who hunted down his father’s executioners and even had Cromwell’s rotting corpse dug up for a symbolic punishment.

It took centuries for a sitting ruler to face trial again, amid the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle. In the USA, Ken Starr was appointed as independent counsel in 1994 to investigate President Bill Clinton’s Whitewater dealings, with his remit including sexual harassment claims and the Lewinsky affair. Branded a politically motivated ‘witch hunter,’ Starr endured ridicule, threats, and lasting professional setbacks, while ‘Slick Willy’ survived impeachment despite lying publicly about Lewinsky.

Silvio Berlusconi faced the courtroom even before his election as Italian Prime Minister in 2003, beginning with a 1995 bribery trial. Subsequent prosecutions, including the ‘Rubygate’ scandal over tax fraud and sexual misconduct with an underage dancer, saw relentless attacks on prosecutors by ‘Il Cavaliere’s’ media empire. Lead prosecutor Ilda Bocassini came in for intense personal vilification, being nicknamed ‘Ilda la Rossa’ to portray her as a political adversary.

In South Africa, President Jacob Zuma even resorted to lawfare against his prosecutors, during an arms deal corruption trial commenced against him in 2005. ‘JZ’ eventually resigned in 2018 due to political and public pressure. His arms deal trial is ongoing, and in 2022 he even initiated criminal proceedings against lead prosecutor Billy Downer, who had been subjected to other forms of harassment.

Trump himself was twice impeached during his first term. The first impeachment concerned him pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and led to House Manager Adam Schiff facing attacks, threats, and ridicule from Trump’s camp and sympathetic media. The second, for ‘incitement of insurrection’ after the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, prompted similar harassment of lead manager, Jamie Raskin.

Overall, history demonstrates that those tasked with holding sitting rulers to account have always endured harassment and, at times, persecution - despite their essential work to uphold justice for all. Whether this reflects a recent erosion of democracy is therefore debatable; what appears certain is that only prosecutors in countries with elected parliaments have been able to take their rulers to trial, something that remains a pipe dream in other political systems.

James Vella-Bardon's work can be found on Amazon.