If indicting Trump now, meant losing both the House and Senate this November.

[fightforfreedom]

Would you want him indicted now? That is a tough choice.

I would choose, Indict him now.

[MatthewG.]

1. No.

I don’t think the trade-off would be this clean, but if that’s the choice, I’d wait on the indictment. The election will be over soon enough, and indictment is just the beginning of a long process.

[tavernier]

2. I don't see that as a possible outcome.

In fact, it could go in the opposite direction. Poles show that the majority of Americans want something done about him soon!

[fightforfreedom]

4. Choose. That's the point of the post.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Why is it 'the point of the post'?

What are you trying to prove?

[fightforfreedom]

26. Nothing, But I did get an answer.

It looks like most people believe, given the choose, believe keeping control of congress is more important than indicting Trump now. That was the point of my post. This was not a test, it was not a trick question. It was a hypothetical question. I got an answer.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. No way, holding those Houses is too important, more so than IQ45's indictment imho (nt)

[thomski64]

9. Not to be too snarky, but..

..you missed a chance to elaborate what
Poles think tavenier

[Scrivener7]

20. Wut?

[Mr. Ected]

5. Maybe I'm greedy but I want to indict Trump AND win the House and Senate

And if we hold off on the indictments until after mid-terms there's a damned good chance we can have our cake and eat it too.

Fill in the down time with some incendiary J6 hearings and that's exactly what may happen.

But if it boiled down to a choice, there isn't one. We need to be in charge of Congress. We can always circle back to Trump.

[karynnj]

25. Not to mention, additional hearings may further shift opinion with more people agreeing

that Trump and his administration did unforgivable things. To some degree, this long public recounting of what happened and the FBI raid's results could be what is needed to slowly move a significant amount of Republicans to drop their allegiance to Trump. I suspect that was also one purpose of Biden's speech.

[Mr. Ected]

31. I totally agree

The J6 committee has several weeks to reveal more and more of the plot against America and that, more than a Trump indictment, will shed votes and redirect them to Democrats. I have no doubt in my mind that will be the case.

Then, after the mid-terms, a cascade of indictments, one after the other in rapid succession, up the chain of command, culminating in multiple indictments against Trump. If we could somehow take both the House and the Senate AND begin the criminal trials against the fascists with 2 years until the general election, the US may actually be salvageable.

[OnDoutside]

6. No. Not a hard choice.

[Ocelot II]

7. Indict him when the case is ready, not before.

There's no reason to hurry. The FBI has the stolen docs, the FBI/CIA/NSA etc. probably have a pretty good idea of what's missing and they might even know where some of it went. Before there are any indictments the IC should be able to finish its threat assessment without getting tangled up in the criminal aspects of the case. It's probably true that indicting him now would bring the MAGAts out in force, which could cut both ways wrt the elections, but it's more important to be sure all elements of any criminal charges are completely in order. No mistakes, no holes. "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."

[Xoan]

8. The Fear Factor ...

always a good defense.

[OrlandoDem2]

10. No way Garland, or a grand jury, indicts before Election Day. But ruining the holidays for the Trump

family would be delightful. Somewhere just before Thanksgiving and Christmas would be fine by me.

[Native]

11. Oh, Hell No!

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. If indicting Trump after the elections meant Dems keep house and senate, what would you choose?

FIFY

[fightforfreedom]

14. I do not believe indicting Trump now would hurt the Democrats this November.

I just want to see what people think when looking at it in a different perspective.

[gab13by13]

15. It isn't an either or argument,

Indicting Trump will fire up his base.
Indicting Trump will fire up our base.

Let's look back at recent history; what happened when Democrats impeached Trump?

A record number of Trump voters showed up for the 2020 election.
A larger record number of Joe Biden voters showed up.

Indicting Trump won't just bring out Magats to vote, it will bring out Democrats.

[kacekwl]

16. Ridiculous question.

[BlueIdaho]

17. There is a real possibility

That indicting TFG would boost the Democrats chances in November. The Trump era is over.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Indicting him now would likely keep both chambers in control of the Democrats.

[aeromanKC]

19. NO if given that choice

Trump WILL eventually get indicted. The opportunity to win the House and Senate is NOW. There are no do over's there.

[snowybirdie]

21. Absolutely not

Republicans running Congress can do so much damage together. Donnie Blowhard is just a pathetic one man show who can't really do squat.

[empedocles]

22. We lose Congress, Democracy is at stake

[Wounded Bear]

23. I consider that a false binomial choice...nt

[50 Shades Of Blue]

24. Absolutely not!!!

[musclecar6]

27. I would

Think unless Garland has a ton of bad stuff that our national disgrace is in the process of revealing to other countries, like selling top-secret info etc, he’ll probably wait until after the election. So unless it’s urgent, he doesn’t want to get caught up in the same thing Comey did by dropping bombshells just before the election. I also think it might backfire on what we want if he did that right before the election, unless as I said there is urgency that all but the hard-core MAGA numbskulls, would see as necessary.

Of course the bottom line is we don’t have to worry about any of that stuff because it’s not up to us. Garland is the one who gets to lose sleep trying to balance out all the factors before he makes his decision. I hope when it comes down to it, he doesn’t punk out like Mueller did with a bunch of bullshit he couldn’t indict a sitting president and all that other crap and if I remember correctly Andrew Weinstein ( who was Mueller’s assistant) wanted to indict him but Mueller didn’t.

[GoCubsGo]

28. Have you been listening to ANYTHING the Republicans have been saying about what will happen

if they ever take back Congress??? Anything at all? If that happens, you can throw the book at Trump, and he'll still wind up walking. FFS.

[Demsrule86]

29. No...absoulutely not. The elections are so important. Trump is not the only one coming after

our Republic. Nothing is worth losing in the midterms.

[rownesheck]

30. No.

Indictments don't mean anything.

Now, if the question was imprisoning him...