The principle that “no one is above the law” is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that everyone, regardless of status or position, faces accountability for their actions. The recent case of Sean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department lawyer dubbed “sandwich guy” for allegedly assaulting a Customs and Border Protection agent by throwing a sub sandwich, vividly illustrates this maxim. Despite his military background and DOJ role, Dunn’s arrest and felony charge for assaulting a federal officer demonstrate that even seemingly trivial acts can lead to serious legal consequences. The swift response from authorities, including his termination by Attorney General Pam Bondi, underscores that professional credentials or past service do not grant immunity from prosecution. This case, set against the backdrop of heightened tensions over federal law enforcement in D.C., reinforces that the rule of law applies universally, holding individuals accountable whether they wield a sandwich or a gavel.

However, the phrase “that’s our story and we’re sticking to it,” attributed to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, introduces a layer of complexity when juxtaposed with allegations against high-profile figures like Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey. Recent claims, amplified by declassified documents and Trump administration officials, suggest these Obama-era intelligence leaders manipulated the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation, prompting accusations of a “treasonous conspiracy.” While Clapper and Brennan have defended their actions, arguing in a 2025 New York Times essay that such allegations are “patently false” and aimed at rewriting history, the ongoing FBI investigations into Brennan and Comey signal that no one, not even former intelligence chiefs, escapes scrutiny. The notion that these figures could face detention at Guantanamo Bay, as some hyperbolic narratives claim, reflects the intensity of political rhetoric but lacks evidence of such extreme measures. Instead, it highlights how the principle of equal accountability fuels both legitimate investigations and speculative narratives.

The idea that “no one is above the law” serves as both a legal standard and a rallying cry in politically charged climates. The investigations into Clapper, Brennan, and Comey, driven by figures like CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, illustrate how this principle can be weaponized to target perceived adversaries. Yet, the absence of concrete charges or convictions against these men, despite years of probes, suggests that accountability must be grounded in evidence, not just accusations. Similarly, Dunn’s case, while minor in comparison, shows that the law’s reach is immediate and tangible for lesser offenses. Whether it’s a sandwich-throwing lawyer or former intelligence officials under investigation, the principle demands that justice be applied impartially. However, the specter of Guantanamo Bay for Clapper, Brennan, or Comey remains a rhetorical flourish rather than a plausible outcome, reminding us that the law’s application must balance accountability with due process to avoid descending into political theater.