On Prosecuting Trump
"The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment."
-- US Department of Justice
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
Yesterday's January 6 Committee's hearing was a powerful presentation of the violent crimes that will be remembered for as long as the United States remains a nation of laws. It was a stark reminder of how a core group of criminals, headed by Donald Trump, attempted to agitate the overthrow of our country. Like everyone here, I want to see Trump indicted, tried, and convicted.
From the day Jack Smith was appointed by the Department of Justice on, I've noted that I think the indictments will start in mid-February of 2023. However, since Professor Tribe has now predicted March, I am willing to wait patiently for those few more weeks. However, I do experience episodes of impatience, especially after watching the J6 Committee's hearings.
Yesterday's hearing was the icing on the cake. I'm old enough to remember watching the various Congressional (Hous & Senate) hearings on both Watergate and Iran-Contra. The criminal activities that are being investigated -- and I think prepared for indictments -- seem to involve the worst aspects of both of those previous scandals. Thus, I am extremely impressed by the J6 Committee's work.
There are a few things I say frequently here, including "the institutions will hold." They did, but certainly the Trump years did significant damage. I understand that such damage takes time to repair. I think our Attorney General is about as good as was Robert F. Kennedy during his brother's administration. Older forum members will remember how long Kennedy went after Jimmy Hoffa, and how difficult that struggle was, despite the evidence of Hoffa's criminal nature and behaviors.
I think that there are three questions that we should be considering regarding indictments and trials. The first has to do with which case has the greater likelihood of conviction: the insurrection or the stolen documents? That is certainly a question that the DOJ prosecutors have to determine, though for the rest of us, it is a matter of opinion. Thus, there isn't a right or wrong answer for us.
The second is how will Trump's legal team try to defend against each potential case. Mike Pence floated the "he was doing what his lawyers advised" yesterday. As obnoxious as Pence is, the fact is that retired federal prosecutors -- ones that think Trump must be prosecuted -- have said the same thing. And since the jury will not be made up of DUers, it woul only take one to think that creates "reasonable doubt."
At the same time, we know that White House legal counsel told him that he had lost the election, to call off the insurrection, and to return the stolen documents. Likewise, I think that there are ways to counter any defense Trump attempts.
The last question has to do with the DOJ considering if prosecuting Trump is good for the country. I think that after what he has inflicted upon the country, it is necessary to prosecute him. And as the quote from the DOJ at the top indicates, it will deter others from similar attempts, if they know they will be caught and prosecuted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
However I'm beginning to believe that federal judges (including SCOTUS) will find ways to weasel out of prison time for Chump. They don't want to send him to prison. So I'm starting to believe prison time is secondary. As long as Chump is convicted of high crimes in office, I'll accept some lame sentence like house arrest, or time served, or whatever.
It's the conviction of high crimes that everyone needs to see. Also stiff fines and penalties, and taxing him into poverty. I can get behind that too.
