Madame Speaker: This is THE WRONG THING TO SAY.

[Laelth]

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2019, 06:22 PM - Edit history (3)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/nancy-pelosi-trump-in-prison-house-democrats/index.html

I have tremendous respect for Speaker Pelosi. Above and beyond her being the highest elected Democrat in the country, third in line to the Presidency, a fiercely loyal Democrat, and one of the best arm-twisters in the history of the United States, her instincts are good—well honed from a long and active history in the Democratic Party that spans multiple generations.

But here, she is wrong. Multiple sources have reported that Speaker Pelosi recently said that she didn’t want to see Trump impeached. Instead, she wanted “to see him in prison.” That is a very dangerous and reckless statement for the Speaker of the House to make. Here’s why:

We have a remarkable and valuable history of maintaining the peaceful transition of power in this country. Our history of peaceful transitions was interrupted only once—in 1860, and the results of that national tragedy haunt us to this day. Insuring the peaceful transition of power is essential to the continuity of our republic.

I will remind my readers that, in 2008, there was a very real fear that George W. Bush would not relinquish the reins of power after his party lost the Presidential election to Barack Obama. That fear was justified because Bush favored autocracy and totalitarianism (just like Trump) and because Bush, while in office, had committed serious crimes--including lying to the American people and dragging us into a costly and tragic war that was completely unjustified.

But Bush still relinquished power in 2009. Why? He was assured of facing no criminal prosecution for his conduct as President. That’s how. That’s how we maintain the peaceful transition of power. Never before in our history has a former President been charged for crimes related to his conduct as President.

Speaker Pelosi is recklessly risking the peaceful transition of power by calling for a criminal prosecution of Trump above and beyond the Constitutionally-mandated process known as impeachment. What incentive would Trump have to relinquish his power if he could be certain that he would be criminally charged as soon as he relinquished that power? None.

I continue to say, IMPEACH HIM. Then we can be done with our investigations and proceed to focus on a positive agenda for the American people. Let Trump’s criminality be Mitch McConnell’s problem. And for goodness' sake, don’t threaten Trump with criminal prosecution or prison. I want him to actually relinquish power when he is defeated in the 2020 election. If he suspects that he’s going to prison as soon as he relinquishes power, he won’t do it.

Would you?

-Laelth

[mr_lebowski]

1. Michael Cohen is in jail for Campaign Finance violations ...

I promise you Trump committed crimes, and deserves prison, for actions taken BEFORE he was POTUS.

What he conspired to do with Cohen is just one example we know of for absolute positive.

And the incentive he'd have to give up power if defeated in 2020 is that he'd be removed, physically, from power if he did not.

[Laelth]

4. Certainly Trump DESERVES prison.

So did George W. Bush, but the peaceful transition of power is more important to me than exacting vengeance upon one bad actor, no matter how serious the crimes he or she committed.

I want Trump to relinquish power when he loses the 2020 election. The only way to insure that he will do so is to exonerate him for all crimes he may have committed as President. To me, it’s worth it to forgive his crimes so long as he is willing to maintain the peaceful transition of power that has allowed and created remarkable political stability in the United States throughout our history.

-Laelth

[Turin_C3PO]

5. He WILL relinquish power if he's defeated in 2020.

He may try and hole-up but he’d be dragged out in cuffs if he tried to prevent a transition of power.

[Laelth]

22. I certainly hope you are right, but I do not share your confidence. n/t

-Laelth

[RoadMan]

2. maybe they're willing to risk a 2nd Trump term in hopes of keeping the House and flipping the Senate

in 2020.

Then they can impeach and remove him in 2021 or something.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

7. Let's gamble on that. Nothing could go wrong with that plan.

[RoadMan]

15. What makes sense anymore?

Perhaps it's eminently "sensible?"

Maybe some of our esteemed resident constitutional scholars, jurists, and high profile attorneys can chime in.

[displacedtexan]

3. Please point out that that is not the text of that CNN article.

Also, there seems to be no info on Eli Watkins, the byline writer. All search results are the same single sentence.

[Laelth]

8. Nobody has confirmed this statement yet.

I saw it in two Apple News articles this morning, but, to my knowledge, this statement has not been formally confirmed. I defend my post only on the grounds that it is carefully-worded, i.e. “Multiple sources have reported,” and I waited until I saw it reported twice before I posted.

That said, I admire your journalistic integrity.

-Laelth

[displacedtexan]

10. It just looks like the text is from the linked article, instead of written by you.

Thanks for replying.

[Laelth]

23. All good. n/t

-Laelth

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. Yes, we must remain proper while the world is attacked by the Orange mushroom

It is time to shout from the rooftops and scream from the streets. HE BELONGS IN JAIL.

[Laelth]

24. He DOES belong in prison.

And everybody knows it, but I would rather just impeach him. Let the Senate decide whether or not he goes to prison. Make it Mitch McConnell's problem. Then Democrats can focus on the issues that matter to the American people.

-Laelth

[GeorgeGist]

9. I say blackmail is a lousy way...

to run a government.

[Laelth]

26. Sorry, my brother. I am not following your logic here.

-Laelth

[arthritisR_US]

11. In 2008 Bush did not lose to Obama, it was

McCain who was running. Bush had served two terms and could not run given your country’s two term limit. Relinquishing the office was not an issue for Bush it was a given.

[stopdiggin]

13. Bush would relinquish

If an orderly transition is assumed. Which the OP is saying is lessened by the threat/cloud of prosecution and prison following such transition. I think both cases (2008 and 2020) are overstated and unlikely, but that's what opinion and discussion is for. (many thought Cheney was whack-a-doodle in the day. oh, what time has taught us! eh?) The OP DID make a minor misstatement in say Bush "loses" to Obama .. but he would have been the one transitioning.

[Laelth]

27. Thank you.

The person to whom you responded did not get my point. I appreciate your clarifying for me.

-Laelth

[grantcart]

12. You do realize this was a comment made in private right

[RoadMan]

16. And that changes what?

Be specific.

[grantcart]

20. This isn't grade school if you don't understand then no amount of explanation would make it clear

It is THAT obvious.

Did you join DU two weeks ago with the intent to post threads critical of Speaker Pelosi?

[RoadMan]

21. Is that all you got?

casting aspersions because of my post count?

How fucking original.

[Laelth]

28. Keep stirring the pot, my brother.

Nice to see you.

-Laelth

[BeyondGeography]

29. And the reason we know about it is...

[UniteFightBack]

14. Elizabeth Warren said it too. He is already individual 1. He's obstructed justice - there is no

question about that. Gee I wonder what's in his financial documents?

Which would you rather?:

1) Impeached due to overwhelming blatant evidence which results in a Senate conviction.
He resigns with Pence pardoning him. I have no doubt there will be some sort of deal worked out.
He is still on the hook for State crimes.

2) He is voted out of office and then indicted. This is where Nancy is.

[RoadMan]

17. an option no one wants to face: 3) He wins a second term

better pray to every single god in all creation Democrats can keep the House and flip the Senate.

[UniteFightBack]

18. Yes I try not to think about that option. That's why maybe impeachment is not great to do at this

very moment but I think this impeachment talk all the time is wonderful and I hope it's damaging to rump.

We need more evidence. We need those financial documents.

I can only IMAGINE what will come out after this skank and his regime are gone and people feel more free to talk.

[RoadMan]

19. Trump and everything associated with him

is a criminal enterprise.

What more would someone need, an engraved invitation?

Every line has already been crossed.

[Skittles]

25. have to be careful here

when I said what she sounded like, I got a hide....some DUers cannot stand to hear the truth

[Laelth]

30. Thank you for the well-intentioned warning. n/t

-Laelth

[sop]

32. Bill Clinton was threatened with prosecution after he left office

He agreed to a plea deal, was disbarred and fined $25,000. All he did was lie about having "sex" with Monica during a deposition.

[Laelth]

35. To my knowledge, what you describe was the result of a state bar complaint.

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2019, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

That's not a criminal prosecution. I stand by my assertion that no President has ever been charged with criminal conduct stemming from their roles as President (outside of impeachment). There's a good reason for this, I think. Promising not to prosecute ex-Presidents allows us to preserve the peaceful transition of power.

-Laelth

[sop]

36. "Clinton Could Have Been Convicted, Prosecutor Contends"

From the Los Angeles Times, March 7, 2002:

"Robert W. Ray took over the independent counsel's post after the Senate acquitted Clinton, and after his predecessor, Kenneth W. Starr, resigned. His main task was to decide whether to prosecute the former president (for perjury) after Clinton left office...

"'The independent counsel concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prosecute President Clinton [and] there was a substantial federal interest in prosecuting [him] for his testimony and conduct in the Jones case,' Ray wrote. And the 'evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.'

"Instead, Ray and (Clinton attorney David E.) Kendall arranged a deal that was announced on Clinton's next-to-last day in office. Clinton admitted he 'knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers' in his Jones case deposition in the presence of U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright. For this misconduct, he agreed to a five-year suspension of his license to practice law.

"'Those sanctions were sufficient,' Ray concluded. The 'public interest' had been satisfied because Clinton had admitted his wrongdoing...But several legal experts faulted Ray for announcing now that he could have brought criminal charges...claiming he would have won a conviction before a jury in the District of Columbia."

Let's see what the FDNY (and other) prosecutors decide about Trump's actions after he leaves office.

[Laelth]

37. But he was neither charged nor convicted. That's my point. n/t

-Laelth

[spanone]

33. I vehemently disagree. Trump is an enemy of the state. Period.

Prison would be karmic.

[Laelth]

34. I also consider the President to be an enemy of the state.

But it is very important that we preserve the peaceful transition of power, and if we corner this wild animal, he may resist imprisonment to the maximum extent of his ability, and he will do so with rhetorical and legal powers that have, to date, astonished the world and me. I would rather impeach him and let the Senate exonerate him in order to preserve the peaceful transition of power. I don't need to see him in prison. Principally, I want to see him out of office.

-Laelth