The people who don't want to risk prosecuting Trump are missing a serious point. He is not a one-off. He is the tip of the spear of people who want to turn our democracy into a theocracy. He will pass from the scene, but others are waiting to fill his spot. Some may prove to be even more successful.
This is not a political debate about the size of government, social programs, or political differences between Democrats and Republicans. It is a battle to preserve our democracy. This issue must not be viewed solely as a political question but as one that can establish a legal precedent for the next want-to-be dictator.
All of Mona's arguments boil down to one word - FEAR. She is afraid of what the MAGAs might do. Well, I have news for Mona and those who think like her. The Founders were afraid when they pledged their lives and fortunes for American independence, Lincoln was afraid when he took on the presidency and the South, black slaves were afraid when they escaped, and helped others escape, workers fighting armed guards to protect their rights against men like Carnegie were afraid, black protestors in the 50s and 60s were afraid of being beaten, lynched, murdered, the Poles were afraid when Hitler's armies crossed into Poland, Churchill and the British were afraid of the Blitz, the Ukrainians, every man, woman and child, is afraid every single minute RIGHT NOW. And they ALL fought back. Mona and other Trump appeasers (yes, she is an appeaser) are afraid of an obese, lying, thieving man who's failed at nearly everything he tried yet was propped up by others. For God's sake, Mona, Trump personally HANDLED, HID, STOLE classified material! If we let him get away with it because you're AFRAID of him and his handlers, do you think you'll be brave enough to oppose him when his no longer few Nazis are parading in the streets and tearing honest government officials from their homes and families and killing them in the streets?
I come down firmly on the side of indicting and trying Donald Trump, private citizen, if the evidence supports both. While I appreciate the apprehension of people who think it will promote violence and divisiveness, I ask them to examine what's going on now. Trump was 'tried at the ballot box', and it's largely had no effect because he simply refused to accept that result. And his cult has followed suit.
IMO, one of the biggest reasons we're still dealing with Neo-confederates and white supremacy today is because this country followed Lincoln's heartfelt and reasonable admonition to 'bind the nation's wounds' rather than hold those who committed treason against this country accountable.
Likewise, Gerald Ford's well-intentioned pardon of Richard Nixon rather than forcing Nixon to face the legal consequences of his actions has led directly to our current situation where trying a former president for his crimes is a fraught decision, leading some to argue it's a bridge that shouldn't be crossed.
I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War protests that swept this country, as well as the turmoil that surrounded the fight for Civil Rights. The city I grew up in, Wilmington, Delaware, was under National Guard occupation for nine months following the assassination of Dr. King and the unrest that followed. So, I understand what can happen in politically and socially explosive situations. I grew up with it.
But none of that is a reason is to back down from prosecuting Donald Trump - for attempting a coup by trying to overturn a free and fair election, for inciting violence at the Capitol, for stealing U.S. government property in the form of presidential records and highly classified intelligence, and any other crime he committed while in office or since.
We're either a country that lives by the rule of law, or we are not. Federalist 69 laid out the intention of our Founders to ensure that, once removed from office, former presidents 'would afterward be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.'
And so, the question before all of us is simple: are we a nation of laws and not of men, or aren't we? Do we really believe that 'no one is above the law' or don't we?
I would suggest that the answers to those two questions will determine whether our Madisonian democracy continues. Or it doesn't..........
If you cave to letting Trump openly break the law without charging him because you're afraid of a "civil war", you're doing three things:
1) You just ushered in anocracy because now the rules don't apply equally to everybody, and once you've set that precedent then the rest of the rules end up being bent and/or broken as well because why the fuck not?
2) You're telling MAGA that threatening their political opponents with violence is the path of least resistance for getting what they want, which incentivizes them to do further threats of violence.
3) You're having the *Department of Justice of the United States of America that is sworn to uphold equal and impartial law* come out and tell the country that "actually it's okay to break the law if you're popular and rich enough", which only incentivizes more popular and rich people to flaunt the law and then point to Trump's excusal as a precedent in a *courtroom of impartial justice* when it's their turn to flaunt the law, and now you'll have judges having to let people off because, hey, we set the legal two-tier precedent of justice and court arguments revolve around legal precedent, so now we're stuck.
^These three things alone make arguing against indicting and putting Trump on trial because of concerns over civil conflict LUDICROUS. This is before we even get to talking about what a "civil war" here would look like if MAGA actually acted out on their little white nationalism coup fantasies. A civil war would look like what we already have today: mass-shooting terrorism committed against the other side's civilians and attacks on law enforcement when they interfere with your side's politics. We're *already* living in the middle of that, and we *still* refuse to ban assault weapons so what the fuck are we even talking about here? Ending what we're already living through?
You either take their assaults weapons away via banning them just like we did with the drug war or you give MAGA the ability to threaten you with "civil war" (that we're already living through) indefinitely because you allowed them to own all these fucking assault rifles that can shoot right through the soft body armor that most cops wear on duty. Either get rid of their arsenals or live in perpetual fear of what they'll *continue* to do with them. You either get the occasional Ruby Ridge or the occasional Uvalde. I say we're better off living with the occasional Ruby Ridge or Waco BBQ. Fuck these assholes and their culture of threatening political violence. Let them shoot it out with the FBI's HRT. I don't give a fuck. Take their assault weapons from their cold dead fingers via legislature if you're so worried about civil war.
With regard to making Trump accountable for his criminal acts -- we should know by know that appeasement of dictators, would be dictators, and bullies never works. Confrontation is painful but avoidance is only worse.
Always worth pausing to reflect how we got to this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't moment. So I offer a hearty Fuck You to Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican Senators who acquitted the POS.
By the logic of not prosecuting Trump, we’d still be a colony of England’s because seeking independence would be too risky.
Which only reminds me of my irritation with those who have appropriated symbols from that fight to back someone they want to establish as a modern day king in this country.
Paraphrasing Watergate: "Follow the evidence." A decision not to indict and try Trump as a political consideration is itself a political consideration. You can't have it both ways. Pick a lane and drive, all the way to the destination.
When in doubt, do the right thing and let the system do its job. That's what it is there for. We must not lose sight of what would happen to any of us if we had committed the same offenses. If anything our elected leaders, given their power over us, should be held to a higher standard of (un)acceptable behavior than we are. Giving them free passes only encourages more of the same behavior and cements in place the broken political system that we all claim needs to be reformed. Let's start the fix by playing by the rules and making them apply equally to all.
Democracy. Or not. Preserving the Republic (as we know it). Or not. That really is the question. Ignoring the alleged crimes of TFG because of threats against the majority by a deranged (yes, deranged) minority is unacceptable for many reasons. Either we are a country of laws or we are not. This is the deciding moment - for the future of Democracy and the Republic.
"Trump should be tried at the ballot box.". The problem with this is the ballot box is made of Swiss cheese. Republicans will not allow Trump to lose. Imagine the horror that would occur on the day of the electoral vote count if Trump truly lost. January 6, 2021 would pale in comparison. Trump must be stopped from running again.
It was an interesting discussion but Charlie won, hands down. You can’t reason with bad faith actors that argue that the sky is green just because you state it’s blue. When in doubt, Do the Right Thing
Indict and charge him. Again, if he is not tried, he'll claim total exoneration and will seek revenge on the world. He will cite the issue of the classified documents really being his and this proves it.
I don't think this is narcissism at all. I suspect it's transactional in one of several ways. The fact that Trump went through the documents implies to me he was looking for something useful, like individuals name that could be leveraged later, or leveraged with the govt to avoid criminal prosecutions. Worse would be outright sale of the documents and they are likely photocopied. That one has real risk , being defined as espionage. I suspect the former. This is not innocent narcissism. Everything Trump does is for a reason. The motives really will come out.
Civil War? How exactly? In our little towns and villages or in the deprivation of people's voting rights? We can't afford not to charge him. The wheel's spinning and in play.
I am on Team Charlie with regards to Trump. Appeasement with bullies, mobs, or autocrats never ends well. When in doubt, fall back on one's values, morals, and beliefs. And if the USA is to stand for anything, it must hold criminal executives responsible for their crimes. Wasn't the whole dang country founded on accusations and grievances against King George III?
If the executive can break the law with impunity, the entire American Revolution is rendered null and void.
The complexity of the situation was sort of evaded in this column. There is the latest classified documents scandal. There is the wide ranging corruption documented by the Jan6 committee. There is the New York investigation of business shenanigans. There is the Georgia investigation. The point is that there will be multiple law enforcement entities making decisions. There is not some single individual who can mastermind a grand strategy. The single most effective path to power for the right has been to fan the flames of distrust, and this will continue. Let's have the law enforcement entities act with integrity and let the chips fall where they may.
I think Mona's argument is not so much about enforcing accountability as it is about doing whatever it takes to ensure Trump never becomes President again. Mitch McConnell could have made it a moot point during the second Impeachment, but he made a different choice. Nevertheless, I don't think indicting Trump, putting Trump on trial, convicting, acquitting, or hanging a jury, or doing none of those things, will have a meaningful impact on improving Trump's chances to become president once again.
One thing I noticed in her Secret pod discussion is she kept saying that a Trump trial will galvanize half of the population to come to his defense and rally around the former chief. But I think the figure is far less than half; it's a percentage of voters in one political party, not nearly half of the entire voting population. It's enough to make him the Republican nominee, but that's baked in the cake already anyway. If Trump wants to be the nominee, the party will hand it to him with a pretty bow on top.
And I don't see a trial of Trump that results in anything short of acquittal as the disaster people seem to think it is; if anything, it would bring with it the benefit of a lower likelihood of political violence, but it's not going to convince people like myself that the man isn't a crook, and the people who already believe that he's no crook will just continue to believe it regardless of any trial outcomes as well. We've all picked our camps on Trump. "If you shoot at the king, you'd better not miss" is not as convincing as it is catchy.
Really, I just think Mona's argument (Damon Linker's too), that pursuing Trump improves his chances at becoming president, falls flat, because in order to improve Trump's chances, it would need to do more than galvanize his very finite, very rabid base. I don't see it electrifying nearly enough of the people who voted against Trump in 2020 to suddenly vote for him in 2024. More people hate his ass than love him, and the intensity of feeling on both sides is pretty equivalent.
The people who don't want to risk prosecuting Trump are missing a serious point. He is not a one-off. He is the tip of the spear of people who want to turn our democracy into a theocracy. He will pass from the scene, but others are waiting to fill his spot. Some may prove to be even more successful.
This is not a political debate about the size of government, social programs, or political differences between Democrats and Republicans. It is a battle to preserve our democracy. This issue must not be viewed solely as a political question but as one that can establish a legal precedent for the next want-to-be dictator.
I've said this before but it bears repeating: To indict Trump is to risk insurrection; to give him a pass is to guarantee his tyranny
All of Mona's arguments boil down to one word - FEAR. She is afraid of what the MAGAs might do. Well, I have news for Mona and those who think like her. The Founders were afraid when they pledged their lives and fortunes for American independence, Lincoln was afraid when he took on the presidency and the South, black slaves were afraid when they escaped, and helped others escape, workers fighting armed guards to protect their rights against men like Carnegie were afraid, black protestors in the 50s and 60s were afraid of being beaten, lynched, murdered, the Poles were afraid when Hitler's armies crossed into Poland, Churchill and the British were afraid of the Blitz, the Ukrainians, every man, woman and child, is afraid every single minute RIGHT NOW. And they ALL fought back. Mona and other Trump appeasers (yes, she is an appeaser) are afraid of an obese, lying, thieving man who's failed at nearly everything he tried yet was propped up by others. For God's sake, Mona, Trump personally HANDLED, HID, STOLE classified material! If we let him get away with it because you're AFRAID of him and his handlers, do you think you'll be brave enough to oppose him when his no longer few Nazis are parading in the streets and tearing honest government officials from their homes and families and killing them in the streets?
I come down firmly on the side of indicting and trying Donald Trump, private citizen, if the evidence supports both. While I appreciate the apprehension of people who think it will promote violence and divisiveness, I ask them to examine what's going on now. Trump was 'tried at the ballot box', and it's largely had no effect because he simply refused to accept that result. And his cult has followed suit.
IMO, one of the biggest reasons we're still dealing with Neo-confederates and white supremacy today is because this country followed Lincoln's heartfelt and reasonable admonition to 'bind the nation's wounds' rather than hold those who committed treason against this country accountable.
Likewise, Gerald Ford's well-intentioned pardon of Richard Nixon rather than forcing Nixon to face the legal consequences of his actions has led directly to our current situation where trying a former president for his crimes is a fraught decision, leading some to argue it's a bridge that shouldn't be crossed.
I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War protests that swept this country, as well as the turmoil that surrounded the fight for Civil Rights. The city I grew up in, Wilmington, Delaware, was under National Guard occupation for nine months following the assassination of Dr. King and the unrest that followed. So, I understand what can happen in politically and socially explosive situations. I grew up with it.
But none of that is a reason is to back down from prosecuting Donald Trump - for attempting a coup by trying to overturn a free and fair election, for inciting violence at the Capitol, for stealing U.S. government property in the form of presidential records and highly classified intelligence, and any other crime he committed while in office or since.
We're either a country that lives by the rule of law, or we are not. Federalist 69 laid out the intention of our Founders to ensure that, once removed from office, former presidents 'would afterward be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.'
And so, the question before all of us is simple: are we a nation of laws and not of men, or aren't we? Do we really believe that 'no one is above the law' or don't we?
I would suggest that the answers to those two questions will determine whether our Madisonian democracy continues. Or it doesn't..........
If you cave to letting Trump openly break the law without charging him because you're afraid of a "civil war", you're doing three things:
1) You just ushered in anocracy because now the rules don't apply equally to everybody, and once you've set that precedent then the rest of the rules end up being bent and/or broken as well because why the fuck not?
2) You're telling MAGA that threatening their political opponents with violence is the path of least resistance for getting what they want, which incentivizes them to do further threats of violence.
3) You're having the *Department of Justice of the United States of America that is sworn to uphold equal and impartial law* come out and tell the country that "actually it's okay to break the law if you're popular and rich enough", which only incentivizes more popular and rich people to flaunt the law and then point to Trump's excusal as a precedent in a *courtroom of impartial justice* when it's their turn to flaunt the law, and now you'll have judges having to let people off because, hey, we set the legal two-tier precedent of justice and court arguments revolve around legal precedent, so now we're stuck.
^These three things alone make arguing against indicting and putting Trump on trial because of concerns over civil conflict LUDICROUS. This is before we even get to talking about what a "civil war" here would look like if MAGA actually acted out on their little white nationalism coup fantasies. A civil war would look like what we already have today: mass-shooting terrorism committed against the other side's civilians and attacks on law enforcement when they interfere with your side's politics. We're *already* living in the middle of that, and we *still* refuse to ban assault weapons so what the fuck are we even talking about here? Ending what we're already living through?
You either take their assaults weapons away via banning them just like we did with the drug war or you give MAGA the ability to threaten you with "civil war" (that we're already living through) indefinitely because you allowed them to own all these fucking assault rifles that can shoot right through the soft body armor that most cops wear on duty. Either get rid of their arsenals or live in perpetual fear of what they'll *continue* to do with them. You either get the occasional Ruby Ridge or the occasional Uvalde. I say we're better off living with the occasional Ruby Ridge or Waco BBQ. Fuck these assholes and their culture of threatening political violence. Let them shoot it out with the FBI's HRT. I don't give a fuck. Take their assault weapons from their cold dead fingers via legislature if you're so worried about civil war.
With regard to making Trump accountable for his criminal acts -- we should know by know that appeasement of dictators, would be dictators, and bullies never works. Confrontation is painful but avoidance is only worse.
Always worth pausing to reflect how we got to this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't moment. So I offer a hearty Fuck You to Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican Senators who acquitted the POS.
By the logic of not prosecuting Trump, we’d still be a colony of England’s because seeking independence would be too risky.
Which only reminds me of my irritation with those who have appropriated symbols from that fight to back someone they want to establish as a modern day king in this country.
Paraphrasing Watergate: "Follow the evidence." A decision not to indict and try Trump as a political consideration is itself a political consideration. You can't have it both ways. Pick a lane and drive, all the way to the destination.
When in doubt, do the right thing and let the system do its job. That's what it is there for. We must not lose sight of what would happen to any of us if we had committed the same offenses. If anything our elected leaders, given their power over us, should be held to a higher standard of (un)acceptable behavior than we are. Giving them free passes only encourages more of the same behavior and cements in place the broken political system that we all claim needs to be reformed. Let's start the fix by playing by the rules and making them apply equally to all.
Democracy. Or not. Preserving the Republic (as we know it). Or not. That really is the question. Ignoring the alleged crimes of TFG because of threats against the majority by a deranged (yes, deranged) minority is unacceptable for many reasons. Either we are a country of laws or we are not. This is the deciding moment - for the future of Democracy and the Republic.
"Trump should be tried at the ballot box.". The problem with this is the ballot box is made of Swiss cheese. Republicans will not allow Trump to lose. Imagine the horror that would occur on the day of the electoral vote count if Trump truly lost. January 6, 2021 would pale in comparison. Trump must be stopped from running again.
It was an interesting discussion but Charlie won, hands down. You can’t reason with bad faith actors that argue that the sky is green just because you state it’s blue. When in doubt, Do the Right Thing
Indict and charge him. Again, if he is not tried, he'll claim total exoneration and will seek revenge on the world. He will cite the issue of the classified documents really being his and this proves it.
I don't think this is narcissism at all. I suspect it's transactional in one of several ways. The fact that Trump went through the documents implies to me he was looking for something useful, like individuals name that could be leveraged later, or leveraged with the govt to avoid criminal prosecutions. Worse would be outright sale of the documents and they are likely photocopied. That one has real risk , being defined as espionage. I suspect the former. This is not innocent narcissism. Everything Trump does is for a reason. The motives really will come out.
Civil War? How exactly? In our little towns and villages or in the deprivation of people's voting rights? We can't afford not to charge him. The wheel's spinning and in play.
I am on Team Charlie with regards to Trump. Appeasement with bullies, mobs, or autocrats never ends well. When in doubt, fall back on one's values, morals, and beliefs. And if the USA is to stand for anything, it must hold criminal executives responsible for their crimes. Wasn't the whole dang country founded on accusations and grievances against King George III?
If the executive can break the law with impunity, the entire American Revolution is rendered null and void.
The complexity of the situation was sort of evaded in this column. There is the latest classified documents scandal. There is the wide ranging corruption documented by the Jan6 committee. There is the New York investigation of business shenanigans. There is the Georgia investigation. The point is that there will be multiple law enforcement entities making decisions. There is not some single individual who can mastermind a grand strategy. The single most effective path to power for the right has been to fan the flames of distrust, and this will continue. Let's have the law enforcement entities act with integrity and let the chips fall where they may.
I think Mona's argument is not so much about enforcing accountability as it is about doing whatever it takes to ensure Trump never becomes President again. Mitch McConnell could have made it a moot point during the second Impeachment, but he made a different choice. Nevertheless, I don't think indicting Trump, putting Trump on trial, convicting, acquitting, or hanging a jury, or doing none of those things, will have a meaningful impact on improving Trump's chances to become president once again.
One thing I noticed in her Secret pod discussion is she kept saying that a Trump trial will galvanize half of the population to come to his defense and rally around the former chief. But I think the figure is far less than half; it's a percentage of voters in one political party, not nearly half of the entire voting population. It's enough to make him the Republican nominee, but that's baked in the cake already anyway. If Trump wants to be the nominee, the party will hand it to him with a pretty bow on top.
And I don't see a trial of Trump that results in anything short of acquittal as the disaster people seem to think it is; if anything, it would bring with it the benefit of a lower likelihood of political violence, but it's not going to convince people like myself that the man isn't a crook, and the people who already believe that he's no crook will just continue to believe it regardless of any trial outcomes as well. We've all picked our camps on Trump. "If you shoot at the king, you'd better not miss" is not as convincing as it is catchy.
Really, I just think Mona's argument (Damon Linker's too), that pursuing Trump improves his chances at becoming president, falls flat, because in order to improve Trump's chances, it would need to do more than galvanize his very finite, very rabid base. I don't see it electrifying nearly enough of the people who voted against Trump in 2020 to suddenly vote for him in 2024. More people hate his ass than love him, and the intensity of feeling on both sides is pretty equivalent.