When prosecuting Trump, be selective

[struggle4progress]

Jennifer Rubin
November 24, 2020 at 12:30 p.m. EST

We have, I pray, survived President Trump’s attempted coup. He filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits, delayed the transition, attempted to strong-arm local election officials and propounded anti-democratic propaganda that would make Russian President Vladimir Putin blush. The extent of his activities is not fully known (e.g., what did he say to the Michigan Republican state lawmakers whom he summoned to the White House?), but it is worth investigating to hold him and his enablers to account. Post-presidential legal actions should concentrate there, and on alleged financial crimes ...

A review of the evidence already available, a definitive finding of all illegal actions in the Trump administration (drawn from the special counsel’s own findings) and recommendations for statutory reforms and new guidelines for prosecuting a sitting president would provide some measure of accountability. More important, such action could deter future conduct of this type. But relitigating actions that the special prosecutor already investigated and the House of Representatives refused to act upon during Trump’s impeachment would open the door to endless political retaliation ...

... potential prosecution for possible state or federal tax and related financial crimes, which would predate Trump’s presidency and are essentially unrelated to his time in office, would be entirely appropriate ...

With regard to attempts to undermine and overthrow the results of an election, the incoming Justice Department would be derelict in failing to investigate not only Trump’s but also other Republicans’ actions to undermine voters’ fundamental right to cast a ballot. As several legal gurus have pointed out, under the criminal enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, “No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote . . . or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person’s vote.” Officials at the Justice Department — as well as those at the state level — have an obligation to investigate whether this or other statutes were broken ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/24/when-it-comes-prosecuting-trump-lets-be-selective/

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Rubin is wrong to focus on pre-presidential financial crimes, but I agree with being selective

The campaign finance and obstruction crimes identified by Meuller but not indicted due to the DOJ memo should be prosecuted, as should the emoluments violations. Of course, all the tax and money laundering crimes should be prosecuted, as well as the voting rights act violations.

The other significant crimes, that may involve more of Trump’s minions than himself, which should be prosecuted, are the human rights violations related to the kids in cages. Those cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

[pwb]

2. Yes. One thing at a time

to keep the focus on because trump likes to broaden things.