What’s wrong with a little revenge?

Nearly twenty years ago, long before she was in office, a current Democratic U.S. senator wanted to buy a vacation home. She used an online mortgage broker based in North Carolina. On her loan application, she listed her own estimate of what her primary residence was worth. She got the loan and ultimately paid it back early.

Fast forward to today. Would it be wrong for the Department of Justice to start examining that loan application with an eye toward civil action against her?  What about the North Carolina attorney general? Does the answer change if the attorney general ran on a campaign hinting that she was going “to go get” the now-senator?

To be clear, the person described above, to my knowledge, does not exist. But let's say she did. Would any investigation by the next Trump administration, or by an assertive state attorney general, constitute "revenge?" Or would it simply be applying the exact same standard to Democrats that they have applied to Donald Trump? 

The hypothetical described above is substantively almost identical to the civil action against Trump in New York that resulted in a judgement against him of nearly half a billion dollars.

The left has been falling all over itself at the prospect of what a second Trump administration might look like. They claim that Trump will be seeking dictatorial powers: “You know, like Julius Caesar.” They wring their hands and claim that his attempts at civil service reform would constitute an illegitimate power grab.

But what they are really worried about, it seems, is Trump exacting revenge on the political enemies who have been coming after him. As one particularly unhinged rant squealed: “Trump has long had a love affair with revenge — to such an extent that this fixation should be added to the list of concerns reasonable people ought to have about a Trump restoration. If Trump, with his authoritarian impulses, returns to the White House, it is rather likely he will use his power to extract payback — for this conviction, the other civil and criminal cases filed against him, and all perceived slights and assaults. There will be a revenge-a-thon.”

So, here is my question: What is the difference between “payback” or “a revenge-a-thon,” and simply applying the same standards to other elected officials that have now been applied to Trump?

Put another way: Now that Democrats in law enforcement have established a new standard for what justifies a criminal indictment of a former elected official or a current candidate for office, what is wrong with having Republican law enforcement apply those exact same standards to Democratic officials and candidates?

A recent headline is emblematic of the current narrative: “Trump suggests political enemies could face prosecution.” That is offered as a warning as to the possible evils of the next Trump administration. But change “Trump” to “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg” and you don’t have an accusation — you have a simple statement of what actually just happened in New York.

Don’t get me wrong. I abhor the fact that the standard for pursuing government leaders has been lowered so dramatically. I cringe at what precedents Trump Derangement Syndrome is bringing to our politics and civic institutions. I am extraordinarily worried over the Machiavellian trails the left is blazing in order to “get Trump.”

But they have set the standard now. They lowered the bar. It is now not only acceptable but praiseworthy to charge a former president of the United States with 34 felonies for a bookkeeping discrepancy of which he may not even have been fully aware. 

So why shouldn’t Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden now be measured by the exact same yardstick? 

Maybe they are the squeakiest clean politicians in history. But it doesn’t seem like it is now beyond the pale for an aggressive prosecutor to go sifting through their tax records, their mortgage and auto loan applications, and federal financial aid forms they have filled out for children approaching college age, to name just a few examples. Do you suppose any of them have followed the extremely common advice of rounding their income up to the next $100,000 on a credit card application — a practice also known as fraud?

Of course, the real best revenge is to live well. And Trump himself has even noted that his real plan for “revenge” is simply to win the election.

That is probably the sort of revenge the left fears the most, as many liberals believe or at least say in public that a Trump victory would be a “threat to democracy.” What they cannot see — blinded by their hatred for the man (and for many of his supporters) — is that they have already done what they accuse Trump of wanting to do.

Having everyone play by the exact same rules, even after those rules have been ruinously rewritten by Bragg, Letitia James and Merrick Garland, isn’t revenge. It’s equal justice under law.

Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.