Please, stop with the "The tough decision..." commentary!

[Silent3]

God, I am sick and tired of pundits and talking heads opining about how evidence against Trump and his minions is "merely" part of the equation, that the "tough" decision is whether to actually prosecute or not, no matter how good the evidence is.

I DO NOT FUCKING CARE how "unprecedented" and "historical" it would be to prosecute a former American President.

A FUCKING COUP carried out by an American President is, you know, a bit unprecedented too.

If you're a prosecutor, and you think this is a tough call that requires deep soul-searching thought about what's best for the country, QUIT YOUR FUCKING JOB AND GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY.

[empedocles]

1. The tough decision, may be the 'when' decision.

In the meantime the evidence keeps piling up, a public consensus, which is important in this political world, keeps building agaiinst trump.

[Walleye]

2. I really think telling security to turn off the magnetometers is a smoking gun

Pardon the metaphor. And this was definitely not hearsay, she heard him tell people to do that. And there’s tape of him demanding that the crowd be allowed to come up closer

[Girard442]

3. If prosecutors decide to wait until after the midterms to move...

...they might not be making any more decisions, ever.

[Lochloosa]

7. Midterms will have no effect on the DOJ.

[jgo]

37. not so sure

I have seen discussion that says if repubs take Congress, they can surgically cut funds from DOJ, and thus defund J6 legal efforts. Does anyone know if this argument is credible?

[Lochloosa]

40. That money is already there in the budget. They'll find it if need be.

[marble falls]

50. It is. Vote and get every one you know to the polls. The GOP has gutted a lot of programs ...

... this way.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. Civics 101

HINT:

[Baitball Blogger]

4. No man is above the law. Period.

[Magoo48]

19. If a politically expedient decision not to prosecute is made some back room or high office,

then yes, some people are,above the law.
Cops in many places are protected by laws often putting them above the law.
Billionaires and the morbidly Rich’s money often puts them above the law.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. And that's the reason we find ourselves where we are today.

A total lack of trust in the system, because some are finding a way to skirt consequences.

I don't know any ordinary Democrat who is going to be harmed if they prosecute Trump. It's just going to make things sticky for everyone who has to conduct business with Republicans. The rest of us have found a way to exclude them out of our lives. The only way that we might resume our friendships is if Trump and his co-horts face consequences and our former friends realize that they were wrong, or misled.

[Magoo48]

23. Agreed, I know my interactions with the few Republicans I'm social with is strained, irreparable?

[Evolve Dammit]

34. With all respect for the idea of that, it simply is not true. Drumpf's life proves it

[Baitball Blogger]

42. It will happen, but, justice delayed, justice denied.

[Turbineguy]

5. Never the less, DoJ should proceed cautiously

and be on firm ground.

Trump and his supporters do not respect the law, but we should.

[brooklynite]

6. So in line 1 you're angry at pundits but in line 4 you're yelling at the prosecutors

The two have nothing to do with each other.

DOJ will prosecute if they think they have a case, and they'll do it on their schedule.

[gab13by13]

9. DOJ may not prosecute if it thinks it has a case.

[Silent3]

10. I'm yelling at the pundits because they're calmly acting the its reasonable and understandable...

...if the prosecutors are treating prosecution of Trump as a delicate and difficult decision. It is not.

This is also not about "if they think they have a case". This is about, even if they are certain they have a case, nevertheless deciding not to pursue that case.

If the DoJ gets to the point that they are certain they have a solid case, but then nevertheless decide it's too disruptive or too precedent-setting or just too damned much trouble actually prosecute, that it's somehow better to allow Trump and his minions to be above the law... that would be unforgivable.

No pundit worth their salt should be so calmly accepting that such cowardice and coddling of the elite would be an acceptable choice.

[gab13by13]

13. I keep saying this over and over again,

the #1 goal of the select committee is to convince Merrick Garland to prosecute Donald Trump.

Mark Meadows is the key witness, DOJ needs to put him in front of a grand jury. Donald Trump gave Meadows a million dollars to buy his silence and no one talks about that.

[gab13by13]

8. Look at the decision through an institutionalist's eyes.

You may not like it but we can all see the evidence is out there. The select committee is pissed that DOJ did not indict Mark Meadows. Meadows is the middle man who keeps Trump's hands clean. He sends Trump's messages out and receives messages for Trump.

IMO, DOJ should have had Meadows before a grand jury by now. He is the key to nailing Trump. Like it or not, Garland is considering the sanctity of communications between a president and his Chief of Staff. Garland will also consider the consequences of indicting a former president. How would he get him to appear before a grand jury? Cuff him at Mar-el-Loco and drag him in. What if a court convicts Trump but an Appeals court overturns the conviction? Garland will certainly consider that possibility being he was an Appeals court judge.

I do not believe that Garland has made his mind up yet. I believe eventually he will do the right thing.

It may not be a tough decision for you or me, but we are not institutionalists.

[Silent3]

11. No "institution" that would permit, even if the face of a solid evidence...

...Trump and his minions to get away with an attempted coup is worth preserving.

If that's the kind of institution institutionalists are afraid to challenge, then fuck 'em.

[gab13by13]

17. I take plenty of heat here for being hard on DOJ and Garland.

I only repeat what I hear from other experts who are concerned with DOJ.

My fall back is hoping that Fani Willis nails Trump in Georgia, she is further along in indicting Trump than DOJ is, IMO.

[Sogo]

12. Hear, Hear!!

Bravo!

[CanonRay]

14. Well said

[soldierant]

15. I'm ot a prosecutir, but I'm in agreement that the decision "requires deep soul-searching thought

about what's best for the country,"

I also think that thought needs to arrive here: There's a first time for every precedent. And this will set a precedent either way. If it isn't the first time a former president is prosecuted for committing capital and seditious crimes against the nation, it will be the first time a former president is NOT prosecuted for committing capital and seditious crimes against the nation. It can only be one or the other.

I know which one I want - and I know which one I don't.

[gab13by13]

18. Nice post.

[Justice matters.]

22. There was a precedent...

In Germany.

The Institutionalists there failed to hold the criminal Fascists accountable.

Over 20 million died horrible deaths next decade.

[gab13by13]

24. I remember a quote from Winston Churchill,

something like, the only thing worse than the evil that one man brought into the world is the people who stood back, said nothing, and allowed it to happen.

[Justice matters.]

26. Yep. Those who willfully ignore the lessons of History... n/t

[soldierant]

30. There are probably lots of precedents if you look at all human history.

But this will set a precedent in US law -whatever happens.

[soldierant]

31. Thanks.

[Ford_Prefect]

16. A citizen committed multiple violent crimes against the United States with the clearly stated

intention of overthrowing our national government. I don't care that he was the former President. That grants no mercies nor immunity. We are not trying the office but the man who attempted to take it by lethal force.

IMHO there are several former POTUS occupants who deserve to have their regimes come under Justice. Posthumously if necessary.

[Magoo48]

20. Please, may it be so.

[plimsoll]

25. The best thing would be for Trump to flee the country.

I can see lots of reasons for politicians and the DOJ and the Judiciary wanting Trump to leave. Some of his minions might be convinced finally and the ones who keep screaming for him to come back will have marked themselves out as potential subversives.

More importantly at a jury trial there is a non-trivial chance that a Trumpist would be on the jury. We've seen that movement conservatives won't vote to convict their idols if they've decided that the law being broken shouldn't be a law. Remember the Malheur occupations and trials, the prosecution didn't get convictions for crimes the defendants bragged about on national television.

It's not a tough decision, its a question of how do you get a narcissistic sociopath to do something decent.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

27. No matter the person.

Big or small. Man or woman. You break the law you face justice. That's that.

[BaronChocula]

28. Amen Silent3!

True progressives don't realize progress by being too afraid to act.

[Septua]

29. I'm with Silent3

The Founding Fathers or whoever the hell wrote the Constitution, never, ever imagined we'd have a narcissistic, evil, incorrigible psychopath run for and win, the presidency. Trump established the precedent by being elected and he was President by title only.

DOJ won't be prosecuting a former President...the case will be against a common thug who abused his power and tried to overthrow the government. DOJ has to prosecute all of 'em or else, the next thug in the White House will do the same damned thing.

The message has to be clear: no more wannabe dictators in any elected office.

[JT45242]

32. Is there evidence of a crime...

If yes, indict

If no, finish investigation and then decide...
Yes, prosecute.
No, then, don't.

Treat all these asshats in tRump circle like any other criminal gang.

[Septua]

45. Seems to be plenty of evidence at this point

How much would be permissible in a court room, I don't know. And if the judge turned out to be sympathetic to Trump or the rest of the Green Bay Sweep crowd, who knows how a trial would go.

If the Committee can get Cipollone to answer questions, all the pundits are saying he's got the answers everyone wants to hear.

[Meadowoak]

33. String him up by his tiny balls!

[calimary]

35. Lordy Lordy, couldn't agree more!

The response always ought to be - “okay then you’re saying we should just let it go, and let him get away with it? No harm no foul? Seriously?

I’m in the “do the crime, do the time” club. And we have to be, because a CRYSTAL CLEAR message needs to be sent to all future presidents that YOU. DO. NOT. DO. THIS. SHIT.

[Shoonra]

36. An Inconvenient Truth:

To be convicted of anything, from treason or murder down to keeping an overdue library book, there must be a unanimous vote to convict by a 12-member jury.

Considering the election results, it will be very improbable that a jury will be selected without at least one Trumpchump who will stubbornly refuse to vote Guilty. Trump will survive a number of mistrials in which the juries could not reach a unanimous verdict.

[jgo]

38. Room for optimism

Even if criminal proceedings don't work out, the civil lawsuits, such as the capitol police members who are suing TFG, could take a significant bite. Potential for very large damages.

[Silent3]

39. I'm actually surprised by how often 12 jurors manage to agree

So, while what you say is a concern, I don't think it will be as difficult as you might think to get a jury to convict. Also, since any trial for Trump concerning 1/6 is likely to cover a litany of charges, you'd have to have someone so dedicated to letting Trump off the hook that they voted against the rest of their fellow jurors in an extremely suspicious way time after time after time.

There are also a lot of Trump minions who need badly to be indicted. Dedicated juror hold-outs less likely there. While not as good as getting Trump himself convicted for sending a message to future would-be insurrectionists, it would still have some value if people were at least very afraid to ever be an accomplice in insurrection. The fewer willing allies for a nascent tyrant, the better.

[uponit7771]

41. K&R,

[Blecht]

43. Pundits are hired by megacorporations

Their number one task is to protect their own cushy jobs. Both sides -- the dangers of -- blah blah blah.

The problem is that they have an audience.

If only we could stop watching them.

[Hotler]

44. Maybe AG Garland should review the first fascist coup attempt on this country in 1934.

They failed to hold anyone accountable for 1934. Maybe had they done their job in 1934 we wouldn't be here now. This country and the world might have been better off if those involved where sent to prison or hanged. We might not have had the Bush dynasty wreaking this country.

https://spartacus-educational.com/USAbutlerSD.htm
https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/wall-streets-failed-1934-coup/

Failure to stomp down hard on this coup attempt will be the death blow for democracy in this country.

[robertpaulsen]

46. "The tough decision" should be whether to give TFG & his minions life or death

We know what happened.

We know it was sedition.

Sedition is punishable by death.

Should the leaders of the January 6 failed coup be punished by death? That is "the tough decision" that needs to be made.

[Mr. Ected]

47. It wasn't a "tough decision" for the SCOTUS to overturn Roe

Even though it thoroughly pissed off and energized 70 PERCENT of the American population.

Why would it be such a "tough decision" for DOJ to indict Trump and piss off just 40% of the American people?

[Progressive dog]

48. I agree

This is an Unprecedented crime. Prosecution of these criminals is a duty.

[Nululu]

49. 4 out of the last 10 governors of Illinois were imprisoned

For a variety of crimes Mostly corruption of one form or another. What's good enough for the Governor of Illinois is better for our country.

Arrest that SOB intent on destroying our country.

Impeach the Supreme Court members for lying under perjury and bribery (Thomas).