Try Trump at the Ballot Box, Not in Court

[berg80]

Last week, responding to Damon Linker’s persuasive arguments about the dangers of criminally prosecuting Trump, I ventured that we might have to sacrifice justice on the altar of prudence. The column provoked a fierce backlash, and while it may seem odd to say this, I’m in sympathy with my critics, and offer these reflections in all modesty. I may be wrong. Perhaps the right path is to pursue justice “though the Heavens fall.” But we cannot pretend that there is no risk to this path. In fact, the stakes could not be higher—the stability of our society—so it’s worth considering all of the possible outcomes before barreling forward.

The prosecute-and-be-damned party believes fervently that any hesitation to hold Trump criminally liable for his crimes amounts to appeasement and cowardly submission to what Michelle Goldberg calls “the insurrectionists’ veto.” Acknowledging that some on the right are “heavily armed” and speaking “lustily of civil war,” she objects that “The far right is constantly threatening violence if it doesn’t get its way. Does anyone truly believe that giving in to its blackmail will make it less aggressive?”

It’s a great point. The very worst part about refraining from prosecuting Trump is that it would seem to be a victory for bullying and intimidation. I concede that, and it burns. When Trump riles up his mobs and then threatens to unleash them on his opponents, one’s natural reaction is unprintable (by me anyway). It is precisely when he acts like a Mafia don or a fascist that the urge to slap him down with every available weapon is strongest.

Try Trump at the Ballot Box, Not in Court

Trials are too uncertain to risk the republic.

www.thebulwark.com

One can hardly imagine a greater indictment of the POT than essentially saying, "if the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt is not enough to secure a conviction, or even if it is, prosecution is a dangerous endeavor because it would become a circus-like spectacle. Don would take advantage of it in ways that would be damaging to the republic and cause his cult to rally behind him." IOW, The Following is too Crazy to risk it. So let the criminal go free?

The rebuttal. To Charge or Not to Charge

 

[occupied]

He's already been found incompetent.

 

[rightwinger]

Why can’t we do both?

 

[TNHarley]

Fuck that. If he broke the law, get him. Get all of them.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Want a better economy, closed border, affordable gas and food, more money in your pockets, no Hunter/Big Guy/Xi collusion, no IRS/FBI secret service, no free everything for millions of illegals?
TRUMP `~ 2024 and give him the House and Senate to work with. Let's make America livable again...

 

[berg80]

He's already been found incompetent.

Yes, but it's not pertinent to the discussion.

 

[berg80]

Want a better economy, closed border, affordable gas and food, more money in your pockets, no Hunter/Big Guy/Xi collusion, no IRS/FBI secret service, no free everything for millions of illegals?
TRUMP `~ 2024 and give him the House and Senate to work with. Let's make America livable again...

Not pertinent to the discussion.

 

[kaz]

He's already been found incompetent.

You're just sad

 

[Chillicothe]

I read that opinion piece.

For me, personally, if the evidence is such that the experienced heads at the DOJ think there is a legitimate persuasive case for demonstrating Don Trump's intent and willful disobedience of our laws......well, charge him. Indict him. Arrest him.

And, if early warning signals indicate that the RWNJ/Q-Anon/Trumper-world will cause more damage than we are willing to accept.....then Biden can pardon him.

1. Our 'rule-of-law'......our 'no-man-is-above-the-law' ethic mandates we be disciplined and firm in enforcing both against any charged lawbreaker.
2. But, he is the ex-president of the U.S. He's a 'Golden Pheasant' as Germany used to call it's bigwigs of the 1930's & '40's.......And that means, he ain't Joe-the-Plumber. So, yes. Other rules exist as sort of societal release-valves.
3. Which brings us to President Biden's pardoning power.

 

[kaz]

Last week, responding to Damon Linker’s persuasive arguments about the dangers of criminally prosecuting Trump, I ventured that we might have to sacrifice justice on the altar of prudence. The column provoked a fierce backlash, and while it may seem odd to say this, I’m in sympathy with my critics, and offer these reflections in all modesty. I may be wrong. Perhaps the right path is to pursue justice “though the Heavens fall.” But we cannot pretend that there is no risk to this path. In fact, the stakes could not be higher—the stability of our society—so it’s worth considering all of the possible outcomes before barreling forward.

The prosecute-and-be-damned party believes fervently that any hesitation to hold Trump criminally liable for his crimes amounts to appeasement and cowardly submission to what Michelle Goldberg calls “the insurrectionists’ veto.” Acknowledging that some on the right are “heavily armed” and speaking “lustily of civil war,” she objects that “The far right is constantly threatening violence if it doesn’t get its way. Does anyone truly believe that giving in to its blackmail will make it less aggressive?”

It’s a great point. The very worst part about refraining from prosecuting Trump is that it would seem to be a victory for bullying and intimidation. I concede that, and it burns. When Trump riles up his mobs and then threatens to unleash them on his opponents, one’s natural reaction is unprintable (by me anyway). It is precisely when he acts like a Mafia don or a fascist that the urge to slap him down with every available weapon is strongest.

Try Trump at the Ballot Box, Not in Court

Trials are too uncertain to risk the republic.

www.thebulwark.com

One can hardly imagine a greater indictment of the POT than essentially saying, "if the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt is not enough to secure a conviction, or even if it is, prosecution is a dangerous endeavor because it would become a circus-like spectacle. Don would take advantage of it in ways that would be damaging to the republic and cause his cult to rally behind him." IOW, The Following is too Crazy to risk it. So let the criminal go free?

The rebuttal. To Charge or Not to Charge

Do you think Trump should be allowed to defend himself at some point, or not really?

 

[berg80]

Fuck that. If he broke the law, get him. Get all of them.

So you are with Sykes.

I won’t recapitulate all of our argument there (you really should listen to the whole thing), but some of the toplines:

• Despite the short-term risks of a Trump bump in the GOP, we have to keep our eye on a longer time horizon, and not be distracted by the ephemera of last’s week’s polls. The decision on charging — or not charging — Trump will set a precedent that will shape our constitutional order for decades.
• Trump has exposed the flaw in our constitutional order, which, we now learn, is largely based upon an honor code. This is our one — perhaps last — chance to make an unambiguous statement that the president is not, in fact, above the law, even if he has a deranged, mobilized, and angry constituency.
• As Mona notes, there is open talk now of civil war, and she believes that the wiser course is to refrain from taking legal action that might open a Pandora’s box of political chaos.
• But let’s turn that around: On our podcast, I argued that surrendering to intimidation and accepting the idea that the president is above the law is far most dangerous, not merely because it will embolden Trump, but also the Trump manqués of the future.
• If he’s indicted, of course, Trump will play the martyr, and the GOP base will rally around the besieged and disgraced ex-president. But…
• Trump is going to play the martyr no matter what.

 

[kaz]

I read that opinion piece.

For me, personally, if the evidence is such that the experienced heads at the DOJ think there is a legitimate persuasive case for demonstrating Don Trump's intent and willful disobedience of our laws......well, charge him. Indict him. Arrest him.

And, if early warning signals indicate that the RWNJ/Q-Anon/Trumper-world will cause more damage than we are willing to accept.....then Biden can pardon him.

1. Our 'rule-of-law'......our 'no-man-is-above-the-law' ethic mandates we be disciplined and firm in enforcing both against any charged lawbreaker.
2. But, he is the ex-president of the U.S. He's a 'Golden Pheasant' as Germany used to call it's bigwigs of the 1930's & '40's.......And that means, he ain't Joe-the-Plumber. So, yes. Other rules exist as sort of societal release-valves.
3. Which brings us to President Biden's pardoning power.

The US has this old custom that before anyone is convicted of a crime, they are allowed a defense and a jury of their peers rather than the opinion of their political enemies.

Never mind, I realize how outdated that is even as I say it. Persecute on, Stalin

 

[berg80]

Do you think Trump should be allowed to defend himself at some point, or not really?

Of course. He has been fleecing his followers for months in preparation of doing so.

 

[MagicMike]

Last week, responding to Damon Linker’s persuasive arguments about the dangers of criminally prosecuting Trump, I ventured that we might have to sacrifice justice on the altar of prudence. The column provoked a fierce backlash, and while it may seem odd to say this, I’m in sympathy with my critics, and offer these reflections in all modesty. I may be wrong. Perhaps the right path is to pursue justice “though the Heavens fall.” But we cannot pretend that there is no risk to this path. In fact, the stakes could not be higher—the stability of our society—so it’s worth considering all of the possible outcomes before barreling forward.

The prosecute-and-be-damned party believes fervently that any hesitation to hold Trump criminally liable for his crimes amounts to appeasement and cowardly submission to what Michelle Goldberg calls “the insurrectionists’ veto.” Acknowledging that some on the right are “heavily armed” and speaking “lustily of civil war,” she objects that “The far right is constantly threatening violence if it doesn’t get its way. Does anyone truly believe that giving in to its blackmail will make it less aggressive?”

It’s a great point. The very worst part about refraining from prosecuting Trump is that it would seem to be a victory for bullying and intimidation. I concede that, and it burns. When Trump riles up his mobs and then threatens to unleash them on his opponents, one’s natural reaction is unprintable (by me anyway). It is precisely when he acts like a Mafia don or a fascist that the urge to slap him down with every available weapon is strongest.

Try Trump at the Ballot Box, Not in Court

Trials are too uncertain to risk the republic.

www.thebulwark.com

One can hardly imagine a greater indictment of the POT than essentially saying, "if the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt is not enough to secure a conviction, or even if it is, prosecution is a dangerous endeavor because it would become a circus-like spectacle. Don would take advantage of it in ways that would be damaging to the republic and cause his cult to rally behind him." IOW, The Following is too Crazy to risk it. So let the criminal go free?

The rebuttal. To Charge or Not to Charge

Trying him at the ballot box has already been done.
In 2020.
The problem with this in the case of Trump is obvious.
If he (and his low-information minions) refuse to accept the results of any election in which they don't win then there is only one other recourse;
trial and conviction.

 

[kaz]

Of course. He has been fleecing his followers for months in preparation of doing so.

Um ... sure cowboy. Don't worry about us, worry about yourself. It's far beyond that we don't need your support. We really don't want it. I mean really, we don't

 

[TNHarley]

I argued that surrendering to intimidation and accepting the idea that the president is above the law is far most dangerous, not merely because it will embolden Trump, but also the Trump manqués of the future.

The President doing what he wants is nothing new and i find it extremely humorous when goobers like this act like it is.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why can’t we do both?

We did one already. The Devil Donnie went down to Georgia and lost his fiddle I hear.

Time for Part Deux. Time for Benedict Donald to have his day in court.

 

[schmidlap]

Want a better economy, closed border, affordable gas and food, more money in your pockets, no Hunter/Big Guy/Xi collusion, no IRS/FBI secret service, no free everything for millions of illegals?
TRUMP `~ 2024 and give him the House and Senate to work with. Let's make America livable again...

Please keep your wet dream private.

If the Loser can fantasize that he won in a "Landslide!" despite all certified results, all recounts, all audits, and all court challenges, you can delude and pleasure yourself as well regardless of the reality.

 

[rightwinger]

We did one already. The Devil Donnie went down to Georgia and lost his fiddle I hear.

Time for Part Deux. Time for Benedict Donald to have his day in court.

Actually, one led to the other

Trump got badly beaten in the election and his post election antics led to Impeachment and criminal investigations

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Um ... sure cowboy. Don't worry about us, worry about yourself. It's far beyond that we don't need your support. We really don't want it. I mean really, we don't

Trump on the other hand needs every dime you can send him.

have you sent your check today?