The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Octavious]

It makes me feel like all the people I despised in high school - the bullies, the slack-offs that not only ignored the opportunity of an education but actively opposed it - that they ultimately won. We've reached a point where ignorance is not just tolerated, it's actively *celebrated." Where selfishness , vindictiveness, and cruelty have been flipped to be virtues and not vices.

I mean think about it - "woke" i.e. being tolerant and inclusive of other races, genders, etc. has now become a dirty word. I used to be picked on mercilessly in school for wanting to make good grades and go to college. For wanting to follow the rules, do the extra credit. Are we any less ridiculed today for wanting to do the right thing, by the same assholes that did it back then?

And I don't think it's because a bunch of people suddenly became that way. I think it's because the people who were already that way realized the rest of the populace was too apathetic to counter it.

This is exactly what has really made me want to leave this country if I could. There is a large subset of the population that are just total assholes. Trump was just the catalyst to bring them all out in the open. I have so many people that I never want to speak with again after seeing their behavior the last 4-5 years.

[Zaxxon]

I mean think about it - "woke" i.e. being tolerant and inclusive of other races, genders, etc. has now become a dirty word. I used to be picked on mercilessly in school for wanting to make good grades and go to college. For wanting to follow the rules, do the extra credit. Are we any less ridiculed today for wanting to do the right thing, by the same assholes that did it back then?

Spot-on. It's an extension of what's been happening for many years now--another example is 'liberal/progressive.' Those are inherently positive things. Who doesn't want to make progress? But no, they're insults.

[LawBeefaroni]

I mean think about it - "woke" i.e. being tolerant and inclusive of other races, genders, etc. has now become a dirty word. I used to be picked on mercilessly in school for wanting to make good grades and go to college. For wanting to follow the rules, do the extra credit. Are we any less ridiculed today for wanting to do the right thing, by the same assholes that did it back then?

Spot-on. It's an extension of what's been happening for many years now--another example is 'liberal/progressive.' Those are inherently positive things. Who doesn't want to make progress? But no, they're insults.

They're marketing terms. What about conservatives? Who wouldn't want to conserve? What is wrong with moderation and caution? But of course the root of a marketing term has little to do with the evolved political parlance.

Liberal or Progressive or Conservative become brand names. Abused by supporters and critics alike.


.

It makes me feel like all the people I despised in high school - the bullies, the slack-offs that not only ignored the opportunity of an education but actively opposed it - that they ultimately won. We've reached a point where ignorance is not just tolerated, it's actively *celebrated." Where selfishness , vindictiveness, and cruelty have been flipped to be virtues and not vices.

I mean think about it - "woke" i.e. being tolerant and inclusive of other races, genders, etc. has now become a dirty word. I used to be picked on mercilessly in school for wanting to make good grades and go to college. For wanting to follow the rules, do the extra credit. Are we any less ridiculed today for wanting to do the right thing, by the same assholes that did it back then?

And I don't think it's because a bunch of people suddenly became that way. I think it's because the people who were already that way realized the rest of the populace was too apathetic to counter it.

The best part? We'll be driving on the bridges they built in the cars they designed running on the software they approved. flying on the planes they regulate, drinking the water they certify, and so on. If you thought the political collapse was epic, wait for the regulatory and infrastructure ones.

[Zaxxon]

Spot-on. It's an extension of what's been happening for many years now--another example is 'liberal/progressive.' Those are inherently positive things. Who doesn't want to make progress? But no, they're insults.

They're marketing terms. What about conservatives? Who wouldn't want to conserve? What is wrong with moderation and caution? But of course the root of a marketing term has little to do with the evolved political parlance.

I'd argue that conserving in the context of politics is not a positive trait--it's also conserving the status quo, which is (to quote Dr. Horrible) not quo for a large swath of the population. But I agree with you here wholeheartedly:

Liberal or Progressive or Conservative become brand names. Abused by supporters and critics alike.

[YellowKing]

That's part of where my apathy point comes from, not just voter turnout. The left has been incredibly ineffective at fighting the conservative marketing machine.

[stessier]

The DOJ brief was very clear and easy to understand - really recommend reading the whole thing if you usually just go for the summaries.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'd argue that conserving in the context of politics is not a positive trait--it's also conserving the status quo, which is (to quote Dr. Horrible) not quo for a large swath of the population.

On the other hand a conservative (little "c") approach to the office of the President probably would have been a good thing post-2016. The Trump administration was about as progressive as it gets when it comes to unpending time honored norms and standards. I think the daily refrain since day -1 was "unprecedented."

[Zaxxon]

I'd argue that conserving in the context of politics is not a positive trait--it's also conserving the status quo, which is (to quote Dr. Horrible) not quo for a large swath of the population.

On the other hand a conservative (little "c") approach to the office of the President probably would have been a good thing post-2016. The Trump administration was about as progressive as it gets when it comes to unpending time honored norms and standards. I think the daily refrain since day -1 was "unprecedented."

Absolutely. I guess if you distill what I'm trying to say down all the way--'woke', 'liberal', 'progressive' are all used as insults. 'Conservative' really isn't.

[LordMortis]

Absolutely. I guess if you distill what I'm trying to say down all the way--'woke', 'liberal', 'progressive' are all used as insults. 'Conservative' really isn't.

_liberal to conservative < I concur though this may change in the coming years
_progressive is akin more to federalist < I would have said correct six or seven years ago. No so much any more. Since the rise of tea party _conservatism and to cooping of libertarianism into the GOP, this has shifted.
_woke is more akin MAGA < I don't concur. Both are terms of derision on the one hand, terms of pride on the other and have general bad connotations on those who don't sing songs and carry signs.
_I would add capitalist to socialist < I would concur here as well

I also think it interesting how equating liberalism to communist Russia was among the top conservatives insult for as long as I can remember until about 2015. Now it's socialist Western Europe that are the GOP bogeymen.

[malchior]

Another thing I have thought about today is how long can Biden manage this at arm's length. The institutionalists would say he should stay out. The longer this drags on though the pressure to recognize this is ultimately a political problem will ramp up. Any path Garland chooses is going to have political impact on the nation and world. Even if he runs this by the book that is inescapable now. Biden is the elected official with authority here and there is a case he has to get involved. At the very least he might have to step up and address the nation about what is going on.

There is just too much at stake now. Worse the institutionalists will want to wait until after the election when there is a good chance that the House will change hands and massively shake up the political math making the situation even worse. We're balanced on a knife's edge here.

[stessier]

Biden is the elected official with authority here and there is a case he has to get involved. At the very least he might have to step up and address the nation about what is going on.

What? Why does he have to get involved? He shouldn't get involved at all in the legal case. And what could he address to the nation? You think we're going to tell anyone what secrets were exposed? There is nothing he can say that will a) make any difference or b) be helpful.

[El Guapo]

Biden is the elected official with authority here and there is a case he has to get involved. At the very least he might have to step up and address the nation about what is going on.

What? Why does he have to get involved? He shouldn't get involved at all in the legal case. And what could he address to the nation? You think we're going to tell anyone what secrets were exposed? There is nothing he can say that will a) make any difference or b) be helpful.

Yeah for the most part it's hard for me to see the benefit of him being directly involved. If and when Trump is indicted I think it would probably make sense for Biden to give an address to the nation along the lines of "Obviously this is a BFD, but we are a nation of laws, and those laws apply to everyone, he'll have his day in court."

But otherwise? I'm not sure I understand what Biden would be doing that would be useful.

[malchior]

Biden is the elected official with authority here and there is a case he has to get involved. At the very least he might have to step up and address the nation about what is going on.

What? Why does he have to get involved? He shouldn't get involved at all in the legal case.

That's the traditional viewpoint. The usual argument is that it avoids injecting politics. I'm arguing that the case is inherently political. What we're effectively doing is putting someone who is supposed to be apolitical in the drivers seat of a political call with international implications. That's not Garland's lane. That's why I'm talking about thinking about it in a wider view. Prosecuting Trump is not necessarily just for a domestic audience now. We likely have serious international problems due to this event. The proper question is why would Garland be the right person to essentially make a foreign policy decision or domestic political decision of this magnitude? I'm also putting to challenge the idea that Biden doesn't know what is going on and he is in the dark about the case. That's impossible to believe.

And what could he address to the nation? You think we're going to tell anyone what secrets were exposed?

This is not necessarily true. I don't expect him to reveal the secrets exposed but there might be elements that need to be explained and potentially there might be a need for Presidential decisions about declassification to support a prosecution. That's what I'm getting at. The level of political entanglement here may eventually rise to a level where Biden must and should get involved. In any case, I'm just thinking through the nuts and bolts about what might happen. This isn't an assessment of what is likely to happen. Only what could and possibly should happen. I am wrestling with this because we are clearly in the middle of a massive political crisis here of unprecedented scale and ipmact. Part of why the crisis keeps getting worse is we keep expecting a broken system to be perform better than it has to get us into the mess.

Edit: Buchanan and later Lincoln both had to wrestle with similar out of the ordinary problems. One failed and is called the worst President. The other succeeded and is called the best President. But we're leaving that up to Merrick Garland potentially? That doesn't seem likely to me.

Here is a relevant thought experiment. Let's say investigators learn that information relevant to a foreign intelligence service was compromised by Trump. The DOJ can't handle that issue solely. In fact, I assume this is happening to some level in the background now. State is probably involved. Homeland. DOD. And more. The office of the President might eventually have to get involved. Merrick Garland would not be able to make some of the decisions.

There is nothing he can say that will a) make any difference or b) be helpful.

One thing I'm pretty sure on is that absolutes are out the window and that we will continue to see things that challenge our notions.

[stessier]

Biden is the elected official with authority here and there is a case he has to get involved. At the very least he might have to step up and address the nation about what is going on.

What? Why does he have to get involved? He shouldn't get involved at all in the legal case.

That's the traditional viewpoint. The usual argument is that it avoids injecting politics. I'm arguing that the case is inherently political. What we're effectively doing is putting someone who is supposed to be apolitical in the drivers seat of a political call with international implications. That's not Garland's lane. That's why I'm talking about thinking about it in a wider view. Prosecuting Trump is not necessarily just for a domestic audience now. We likely have serious international problems due to this event. The proper question is why would Garland be the right person to essentially make a foreign policy decision or domestic political decision of this magnitude? I'm also putting to challenge the idea that Biden doesn't know what is going on and he is in the dark about the case. That's impossible to believe.

I reject all of that. We are a nation of laws - it is our basis and what we tell the world. Garland is the perfect one to demonstrate how the law applies in this case and follow it through to it's conclusion. I don't see an international political implication that changes that equation. Will there be political fallout from whatever happens? Yes and Biden (or his successor) will have to deal with it - but it shouldn't influence the outcome.

And what could he address to the nation? You think we're going to tell anyone what secrets were exposed?

This is not necessarily true. I don't expect him to reveal the secrets exposed but there might be elements that need to be explained and potentially there might be a need for Presidential decisions about declassification to support a prosecution. That's what I'm getting at. The level of political entanglement here may eventually rise to a level where Biden must and should get involved. In any case, I'm just thinking through the nuts and bolts about what might happen. This isn't an assessment of what is likely to happen. Only what could and possibly should happen. I am wrestling with this because we are clearly in the middle of a massive political crisis here of unprecedented scale and ipmact. Part of why the crisis keeps getting worse is we keep expecting a broken system to be perform better than it has to get us into the mess.

Here is a relevant thought experiment. Let's say investigators learn that information relevant to a foreign intelligence service was compromised by Trump. The DOJ can't handle that issue solely. In fact, I assume this is happening to some level in the background now. State is probably involved. Homeland. DOD. And more. The office of the President might eventually have to get involved. Merrick Garland would not be able to make some of the decisions.

The DOJ filing already said that the DNI and other appropriate officials are reviewing the classified documents and their implications. I have no doubt Biden has been briefed on that as he should be. But that doesn't and shouldn't effect the lawsuit beyond what crimes are charged or additional factors are added to relevant charges.

And again, there is no way addressing the nation makes things better at this point. Like El Guapo said, if/when there are charges and a trial begins, an address would be appropriate, but right now there is nothing he can say that wouldn't be seen as influencing the DOJ or worse, giving away secrets.

[malchior]

I reject all of that. We are a nation of laws - it is our basis and what we tell the world. Garland is the perfect one to demonstrate how the law applies in this case and follow it through to it's conclusion. I don't see an international political implication that changes that equation. Will there be political fallout from whatever happens? Yes and Biden (or his successor) will have to deal with it - but it shouldn't influence the outcome.

I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm saying strictly in the box approaches have potential major issues that indicate failure is possible...maybe even likely.

The DOJ filing already said that the DNI and other appropriate officials are reviewing the classified documents and their implications. I have no doubt Biden has been briefed on that as he should be. But that doesn't and shouldn't effect the lawsuit beyond what crimes are charged or additional factors are added to relevant charges.

Sure in a perfect world. You could also easily say that US Senators saying people will riot in the streets shouldn't impact the decision but I can't imagine they aren't in the math. Or that Trump has 30% of the population behind him. I'm challenging the idea that it is possible to keep the politics out. Especially as the situation potentially declines. I'm not assuming systematic failure but I can't discount it either.

And again, there is no way addressing the nation makes things better at this point.

Again I'm saying to turn away from absolutes to talk about what will happen in reality here. I'm not saying he should do it. I'm only saying he might have to eventually. Prejudging that it is impossible for that to be helpful is assuming that we can predict all the parameters. That seems doubtful.

Like El Guapo said, if/when there are charges and a trial begins, an address would be appropriate, but right now there is nothing he can say that wouldn't be seen as influencing the DOJ or worse, giving away secrets.

That's sort of what I am challenging. I'm saying there might be a situation where is forced to make the decision despite all these downsides. I get you seem to reject a world where it happens but I think we've never been in this sort of danger.

Edit: To be doubly clear, I'm not saying any of this is likely. I'm wrestling through threat modeling here. The spirit is to think would could happen. Well aside from the idea that keeping politics out is possible. We see indications that DOJ is already making political decisions.

[Fireball]

There is no way for Biden to "get involved" here other than ways that would worsen the situation. What would "getting involved" even look like? Talking to the press a lot about it? Talk about jury tampering. Micromanaging the DOJ? He doesn't have that skillset.

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

[Skinypupy]

Worse the institutionalists will want to wait until after the election when there is a good chance that the House will change hands and massively shake up the political math making the situation even worse. We're balanced on a knife's edge here.

I hate it when you're right.

[malchior]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

[malchior]

Worse the institutionalists will want to wait until after the election when there is a good chance that the House will change hands and massively shake up the political math making the situation even worse. We're balanced on a knife's edge here.

I hate it when you're right.

This was a fait accompli to me. One of our enduring problems is that we have a set of institutionalists trying to save institutions using the mechanisms that already have failed. That's why I'm talking about whether eventually the political situation will become unstable enough that Garland shouldn't be making the big decisions. But apparently that's madness. Everything has been going super well.

[Fireball]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

If we want to be a nation of laws, yes. This is a legal decision. They should indict Trump and try him if they think they have a case that will result in a conviction, and not do so if they do not. That's the only grounded way to make this decision.

You cannot clearly predict the politics of all this. Trying to make a political decision in these matters is much more likely to result in a bad outcome than doing things the right way.

Do I wish Garland were moving faster? Yes, but that's a matter of degrees. I think in terms of securing a conviction on these very serious charges giving Trump and his team a lot of rope to hang himself was useful, even if that means we are indicting in November instead of September -- and I don't necessarily feel that a September indictment would be politically helpful to the Democrats' midterm cause.

Right now, the political winds are blowing in our favor, probably enough to hold the Senate and even grow our majority, and if the present momentum sustains to November it probably makes the House a complete toss-up. From a purely _political_ perspective, I am very disinclined to rock the boat right now.

[stessier]

I reject all of that. We are a nation of laws - it is our basis and what we tell the world. Garland is the perfect one to demonstrate how the law applies in this case and follow it through to it's conclusion. I don't see an international political implication that changes that equation. Will there be political fallout from whatever happens? Yes and Biden (or his successor) will have to deal with it - but it shouldn't influence the outcome.

I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm saying strictly in the box approaches have potential major issues that indicate failure is possible...maybe even likely.

By the nature of your post, you were asking people to accept a certain line of reasoning and I reject the very premise of your comments.

The DOJ filing already said that the DNI and other appropriate officials are reviewing the classified documents and their implications. I have no doubt Biden has been briefed on that as he should be. But that doesn't and shouldn't effect the lawsuit beyond what crimes are charged or additional factors are added to relevant charges.

Sure in a perfect world. You could also easily say that US Senators saying people will riot in the streets shouldn't impact the decision but I can't imagine they aren't in the math. Or that Trump has 30% of the population behind him. I'm challenging the idea that it is possible to keep the politics out. Especially as the situation potentially declines. I'm not assuming systematic failure but I can't discount it either.

The Senators' comments had better not be factoring in to any of the DOJ's decisions. I'm not saying there aren't political impacts - I'm saying they shouldn't and can't be seen to be influencing the DOJ. Biden will surely have to deal with the outcome - but that's what he signed up for.

Edit: To be doubly clear, I'm not saying any of this is likely. I'm wrestling through threat modeling here. The spirit is to think would could happen. Well aside from the idea that keeping politics out is possible. We see indications that DOJ is already making political decisions.

What indication is from the DOJ? It has been a long standing rule not to announce indictments 90 days out. That was why the raid was conducted when it was. Everything so far has been according to long standing department policy. The institution is conservative at it's core.

[stessier]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

Yes, it has to be. Every time a president has started firing Attorneys General to get the outcome he wanted, that outcome has not been seen in a positive light.

[malchior]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

If we want to be a nation of laws, yes. This is a legal decision. They should indict Trump and try him if they think they have a case that will result in a conviction, and not do so if they do not. That's the only grounded way to make this decision.

I agree it'd be great to have the luxury to hold to these values. Maybe we can make it through. I'm wondering purely theoretically about what happens if that can't happen.

You cannot clearly predict the politics of all this. Trying to make a political decision in these matters is much more likely to result in a bad outcome than doing things the right way.

I argue we can't afford to assume politics aren't involved when they clearly are involved. It's purely wishful thinking at this point.

Do I wish Garland were moving faster? Yes, but that's a matter of degrees. I think in terms of securing a conviction on these very serious charges giving Trump and his team a lot of rope to hang himself was useful, even if that means we are indicting in November instead of September -- and I don't necessarily feel that a September indictment would be politically helpful to the Democrats' midterm cause.

I'm not arguing for that at all. Edit: I'd also say that deciding not to charge him until after the election is mostly political. He isn't running after all. In fact, my assumption was they wouldn't do it until potentially November/December. If the still most likely possibility occurs and the House changes hands, it seems hard to think it doesn't impact a charging decision at all. I think it's a critical component which again leads me to believe this will increasingly become an impossible to avoid political situation.

Right now, the political winds are blowing in our favor, probably enough to hold the Senate and even grow our majority, and if the present momentum sustains to November it probably makes the House a complete toss-up. From a purely _political_ perspective, I am very disinclined to rock the boat right now.

FWIW I think there is a lot of Democratic party wish casting that is running into the reality of worsening polling in places like PA right now. If the House holds that indeed helps immensely and takes quite of pressure off the DOJ and has follow on effects like reduced risk of worsening crisis. But it still seems likelier than not that the House changes hands. That will dramatically increase risks throughout the system including this situation.

Edit:

Yes, it has to be. Every time a president has started firing Attorneys General to get the outcome he wanted, that outcome has not been seen in a positive light.

I'm not thinking Biden should consider firing the attorney general though I potentially follow the thread that could get us there from this discussion. FWIW I don't see a possibility that includes Biden pressuring Garland. I however could foresee one where DOJ essentially gets to a point where they decide they can't make a decision. Similar to how Mueller got stuck and punted to Barr.

[Fireball]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

If we want to be a nation of laws, yes. This is a legal decision. They should indict Trump and try him if they think they have a case that will result in a conviction, and not do so if they do not. That's the only grounded way to make this decision.

I agree it'd be great to have the luxury to hold to these values. Maybe we can make it through. I'm wondering purely theoretically about what happens if that can't happen.

If this entire discussion is just theoretical masturbation, it is a complete waste of time.

Anyone who thinks we should throw out the rule of law to defeat Trump is no better than Trump, and should be treated with the same disdain and judgment that we treat Trump. Such a person hate America just as much as Trump does.

[Zarathud]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

[malchior]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

If we want to be a nation of laws, yes. This is a legal decision. They should indict Trump and try him if they think they have a case that will result in a conviction, and not do so if they do not. That's the only grounded way to make this decision.

I agree it'd be great to have the luxury to hold to these values. Maybe we can make it through. I'm wondering purely theoretically about what happens if that can't happen.

If this entire discussion is just theoretical masturbation, it is a complete waste of time.

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

I know this already. I'll let this go because I was hoping that maybe I'd try engaging the lot of bright people here in something a little different. No one seems interested in talking about the *possibilities* here. That's cool but I think we're all well aware of all these problems. It's however been clear for some time that our system isn't working to contain Trump. It is increasingly likely (but not certain) that there will not be a solution to this crisis that fits in the neat box we hope for. That was all I was getting at. We'll see how it plays out.

[Victoria Raverna]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

[Pyperkub]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

In almost 250 years, they have been.

But, in the case of Jan 6 (and, anything documents relating to any other Trump crimes, as is possible), toss him in the clink, respect for the office be damned.

[Unagi]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

You are missing the point.


"The President", in the USoA, is not "the law". So, with that understanding, you then accept that the precedent of the President making any push to prosecute his predecessor is indeed terrible.

As (I believe*) Zarathud is saying, the important thing here is that the DOJ calls the shots on what should be prosecuted according to its view of the law is- not what the elected 'insert derogatory adjective here' President thinks the law is and how it should be prosecuted.

[Zarathud]

Yes, let the DOJ as the institution for enforcing the law go ahead and do its job. Trump has been so reckless, they’ll catch him squarely on something.

The records thing should be pretty straightforward. Trump doesn’t own state secrets, he took them home and refused to return them. When you leave a job, you don’t get to keep company documents especially if they’re the secret formula of KFC. If you do, you get sued or go to jail. Trump’s no different from any other employee.

[Victoria Raverna]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

You are missing the point.


"The President", in the USoA, is not "the law". So, with that understanding, you then accept that the precedent of the President making any push to prosecute his predecessor is indeed terrible.

As (I believe*) Zarathud is saying, the important thing here is that the DOJ calls the shots on what should be prosecuted according to its view of the law is- not what the elected 'insert derogatory adjective here' President thinks the law is and how it should be prosecuted.

DOJ's head is appointed by the President, right? So if the DOJ with leader appointed by the President make a decision, it still can be linked to the President. The only way for it to be not President prosecuting his predecessor is for ex-president to be above the law.

[pr0ner]

Garland is handling things correctly, from my perspective. Let's not get in the way.

FWIW though I think Garland hasn't been acting swiftly enough I'm not talking about whether he is handling this correctly or not. Put that aside. Since people seem to be rejecting the thought experiments here is another. Broadly speaking, there is no near-term political event or condition where Garland becomes the inappropriate decision maker here? This is ultimately just a purely cut and dry legal decision?

If we want to be a nation of laws, yes. This is a legal decision. They should indict Trump and try him if they think they have a case that will result in a conviction, and not do so if they do not. That's the only grounded way to make this decision.

I agree it'd be great to have the luxury to hold to these values. Maybe we can make it through. I'm wondering purely theoretically about what happens if that can't happen.

If this entire discussion is just theoretical masturbation, it is a complete waste of time.

Anyone who thinks we should throw out the rule of law to defeat Trump is no better than Trump, and should be treated with the same disdain and judgment that we treat Trump. Such a person hate America just as much as Trump does.

+1

[Unagi]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

You are missing the point.


"The President", in the USoA, is not "the law". So, with that understanding, you then accept that the precedent of the President making any push to prosecute his predecessor is indeed terrible.

As (I believe*) Zarathud is saying, the important thing here is that the DOJ calls the shots on what should be prosecuted according to its view of the law is- not what the elected 'insert derogatory adjective here' President thinks the law is and how it should be prosecuted.

DOJ's head is appointed by the President, right? So if the DOJ with leader appointed by the President make a decision, it still can be linked to the President. The only way for it to be not President prosecuting his predecessor is for ex-president to be above the law.

Pretty sure you are trying to argue "proving a negative" here.

The only real point you seem to be wrongfully making/implying is just that the President should try to push for his vision of justice.

But in my reality - The President appoints the head of the DOJ (assumption is this individual is autonomous and acts on their own merits/convictions) and then totally drops their connection to the DOJ. That's it. It's as simple as that. The President has NO connection to the administration of justice beyond his appointment to that position.

[malchior]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

You are missing the point.


"The President", in the USoA, is not "the law". So, with that understanding, you then accept that the precedent of the President making any push to prosecute his predecessor is indeed terrible.

As (I believe*) Zarathud is saying, the important thing here is that the DOJ calls the shots on what should be prosecuted according to its view of the law is- not what the elected 'insert derogatory adjective here' President thinks the law is and how it should be prosecuted.

DOJ's head is appointed by the President, right? So if the DOJ with leader appointed by the President make a decision, it still can be linked to the President. The only way for it to be not President prosecuting his predecessor is for ex-president to be above the law.

Pretty sure you are trying to argue "proving a negative" here.

The only real point you seem to be wrongfully making/implying is just that the President should try to push for his vision of justice.

But in my reality - The President appoints the head of the DOJ (assumption is this individual is autonomous and acts on their own merits/convictions) and then totally drops their connection to the DOJ. That's it. It's as simple as that. The President has NO connection to the administration of justice beyond his appointment to that position.

FWIW there is a school of thought - I won't however characterize it's prevalence - that believes that the DOJ's apolitical mission means they shouldn't indict party leaders if the AG/President are from the other party. It's not formal or policy by any means.

Still even beyond that one idea we have a reasonable body of evidence that ex-President's are indeed above the law. Trump has been committing open crimes without care. This might be another in a long line. We'll see.

[Unagi]

Obviously, I'm compelled to ask for what ex-pres you feel have been entirely freed of their judicial comeuppance.

[malchior]

Obviously, I'm compelled to ask for what ex-pres you feel have been entirely freed of their judicial comeuppance.

Clinton arguably could have been charged for perjury. Obviously Ford sprang Nixon but he could have been charged before then. There were credible allegations that Reagan was involved in Iran-Contra. If you go back in the way back machine Harding probably should have been prosecuted. That's the hint of the problem though. President's rack up enemies. This is why prosecuting President's is tempting and needs to be tempered through reasonable deference to political outcomes like elections to settle scores. Still Trump has as usual completely abused that space though and made a mockery of justice.

[Unagi]

Clinton arguably could have been charged for perjury.

For a blow-job/affair/and even massive occupational leverage. This isn't the 'above the law' that anyone is terrified about. Although, legit.

Obviously Ford sprang Nixon but he could have been charged before then.

OK.

There were credible allegations that Reagan was involved in Iran-Contra..

I'll give you that, but it seemed to me that he got his 'pass' while president. Still valid in the spirit of things, but not technically.

If you go back in the way back machine Harding probably should have been prosecuted.

And as you say, not all that relevant to a modern-day review of this topic. But I seriously and sincerely appreciate the fact.

[malchior]

Clinton arguably could have been charged for perjury.

For a blow-job/affair/and even massive occupational leverage. This isn't the 'above the law' that anyone is terrified about. Although, legit.

I'd argue this caused years of griping from them that elites were above the law and they had a point. That's the problem with a lot of this. Some is the normal griping and attempted score settling we expect. It also was corrosive. This notion that the Clinton's were crooked were part of the dire results in 2016.

We're in this situation not just because the law doesn't seemingly apply to ex-Presidents. It apparently doesn't apply in the same way to entire classes of people. We're all living in a system that has been sick a long time. And then you consider the ridiculous incredibly corrosive treatment of Trump. A lot of people including myself expect that Trump will escape this again. I'll be relieved if we commit to being a rule of law nation but it feels pretty unlikely. Many have patiently waited for years to be proved wrong. We'll see.

[Kurth]

Establishing the precedent of the President making a political decision to prosecute his predecessor is terrible. That was the only thing restraining Trump’s DOJ.

The Republicans are going to call it politically motivated anyway, but making it more than a conspiracy theory is madness.

It might feel good, but you’re shooting democracy in the foot.

Then maybe ex-presidents should be officially above the law.

You are missing the point.


"The President", in the USoA, is not "the law". So, with that understanding, you then accept that the precedent of the President making any push to prosecute his predecessor is indeed terrible.

As (I believe*) Zarathud is saying, the important thing here is that the DOJ calls the shots on what should be prosecuted according to its view of the law is- not what the elected 'insert derogatory adjective here' President thinks the law is and how it should be prosecuted.

DOJ's head is appointed by the President, right? So if the DOJ with leader appointed by the President make a decision, it still can be linked to the President. The only way for it to be not President prosecuting his predecessor is for ex-president to be above the law.

Pretty sure you are trying to argue "proving a negative" here.

The only real point you seem to be wrongfully making/implying is just that the President should try to push for his vision of justice.

But in my reality - The President appoints the head of the DOJ (assumption is this individual is autonomous and acts on their own merits/convictions) and then totally drops their connection to the DOJ. That's it. It's as simple as that. The President has NO connection to the administration of justice beyond his appointment to that position.

FWIW there is a school of thought - I won't however characterize it's prevalence - that believes that the DOJ's apolitical mission means they shouldn't indict party leaders if the AG/President are from the other party. It's not formal or policy by any means.

Still even beyond that one idea we have a reasonable body of evidence that ex-President's are indeed above the law. Trump has been committing open crimes without care. This might be another in a long line. We'll see.

I'm entirely on team stessier/Fireball as far as it goes with this exercise in theoretical masturbation.

Biden should 100% not be seen as getting involved or putting his thumbs on the scales of justice or even pubic opinion when it comes to criminal investigation/prosecution of Trump and his cronies. The best thing Biden can possibly do in a terrible situation is to remain above the fray for as long as he possibly can. To the extent your thought experiment centers around when - if ever - Biden can no longer keep out of it . . . I'm not sure what the answer is, except that we're definitely not at that point yet (and hopefully, we never will be).

As an aside, don't take this the wrong way malchior, but every now and then, I read your posts and wonder if you and Drazzil don't share a similar perspective on things. Obviously, not suggesting in any way that you and Drazzil are the same or that your posts have the same merit. But you both do seem to me to insist as a fundamental starting point that the system has failed or is in danger of failing near term and that drastic, out-of-the box action is necessary -- the kind of action the "very serious people" (aka, I think, the institutionalists) will not consider or embrace.

I don't mean to say this to throw a jab in any way. I just think it's interesting that two forum members who I have diametrically different opinions of end up, not infrequently, espousing views that seem to be at least somewhat on the same page.

[Kasey Chang]

Frankly, and I'm only going to say this once, IMHO, the ONLY reason that Trump would have that many secret, top secret, Compartmentalized info only, and all that at Mar-A-Largo, was because he had talked to Putin and Putin wanted him to look at secrets. Whether Putin has spies in place to get copies of them is debatable, but that would NOT surprise me. It's probably MUCH easier to access Mar-what-ever than the WhiteHouse. Yes, I've said it. I think Putin made Trump into a spying accomplice, knowingly or not. IMHO, Trump *knew* he screwed up, and EVERYTHING he'd done since was to cover things up, Jan 6 included. His lawyers are not stupid (with exception of Giuliani) and they know they don't have a leg to stand on. The other GOP true-believers are just grasping at straws claiming he had declassified everything (in his own head).

The fact that many of the FBI Counter-intel team and DOJ Investigators had to get a clearance upgrade just to LOOK AT the documents they found at Mar-whatchamacalit indicates this is NOT routine **** that can be handwaved away. DOJ will NOT let this slide. We are potentially looking at the biggest intel leak since Walker. Not even the whole GOP can shield him from this one, esp. with DeSantis trying to outdo him and Abbot.

Whoever leaked the photo of all those document cover sheets needs a medal, after all this is done.