Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(145,293 posts)
Mon Feb 21, 2022, 12:25 AM Feb 2022

Prosecuting Trump would set a risky precedent. Not prosecuting would be worse.

I understand that AG Garland may be hesitant about prosecuting TFG. Third world countries routinely put former leaders on trial and AG Garland may not to set this precedent. However like Nicon, TFG is a unique case and there should be a prosecution.




When President Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, the odds of his standing trial for obstruction of justice seemed high: His actions undermining the Watergate investigation had been tape-recorded, and his part in the coverup led to pressure on the legal system to hold him accountable. In September 1974, however, one month after Nixon left office, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Ford later told a congressional subcommittee that the pardon was designed to “shift our attentions from the pursuit of a fallen President to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation.”.....

If Trump were indicted, he would become the first former president to stand criminal trial. Prosecutorial threats are multiplying: Bank and tax fraud charges are under consideration in Manhattan. In Fulton County, Ga., a special grand jury is investigating Trump’s interference in the 2020 election. In a Washington courtroom, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta told a convicted Jan. 6 Capitol rioter that he was a pawn in a scheme by more powerful people, and the legal community is debating whether Trump’s seeming incitement of the insurrection has opened him up to criminal charges. The National Archives requested that the Justice Department open an investigation into Trump’s mishandling of top-secret documents that the government recently retrieved from his Florida estate. Trump still faces legal jeopardy for obstructing justice during Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election (remember that one?). During the 2016 campaign, Trump allegedly orchestrated hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels (the charges that landed his handler Michael Cohen in prison referred to Trump as Individual #1). This list is hardly exhaustive and omits the dozen-plus civil lawsuits and civil investigations Trump faces.....

But the far graver peril in this situation is inaction, a paralyzing refusal to hold Trump criminally liable for his behavior. The country has seen what happens when lawlessness triumphs; when some citizens feel they can do pretty much what they want with impunity. As historian Eric Foner has pointed out, in 1873, in reaction to the election of a biracial government in Colfax, La., a White mob assaulted the county courthouse, murdered a group of African Americans and seized control of the town government without substantial consequences. In 1874, in New Orleans, a white supremacist organization known as the White League tried to topple the state government (U.S. troops at least suppressed this riot). In 1898, long after Reconstruction, armed Whites overturned a duly elected biracial government in Wilmington, N.C. Because there was no law enforcement, no accountability and no consequences, such violence was condoned, sanctioned by the state and some leaders — which thus empowered anti-democratic forces for decades across the Deep South and elsewhere. (One of the impeachment charges against Andrew Johnson said he had fomented post-Civil War white supremacist violence in New Orleans and Memphis.)

Lessons from overseas also paint a bracing picture: Refusing to hold officials accountable for crimes emboldens them. Putting someone above the law is simply unsustainable for any mature democratic system. In the 20th century, Mexico’s long-time ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party refused to prosecute senior officials for corruption, choosing what three political scientists called “stability” in the political system over “accountability” in the legal one, and corruption became endemic. These scholars argue that nations transitioning toward democracy sometimes do better when they don’t prosecute former leaders and instead allow “democracy to take root.”

I agree with the concept that not prosecuting TFG will embolden his supporters.
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Prosecuting Trump would set a risky precedent. Not prosecuting would be worse. (Original Post) LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2022 OP
I greatly respect Professor Tribe, and his call for action Bayard Feb 2022 #1
All of what you have grayed needs to be attributed to the sinkingfeeling Feb 2022 #2
Republicans knew what they voted in--a crook. Baked Potato Feb 2022 #3

Bayard

(22,087 posts)
1. I greatly respect Professor Tribe, and his call for action
Mon Feb 21, 2022, 12:30 AM
Feb 2022

I hope his former student, Merrick Garland, does too.

sinkingfeeling

(51,457 posts)
2. All of what you have grayed needs to be attributed to the
Mon Feb 21, 2022, 01:06 AM
Feb 2022

person who actually wrote it.... Matthew Dallek of the Washington Post.

Baked Potato

(7,733 posts)
3. Republicans knew what they voted in--a crook.
Mon Feb 21, 2022, 01:27 AM
Feb 2022

There’s no question Dump is dirty through and through. We are supposed to be a country of laws and equal Justice.

Dump and Co-conspirators have so damaged the country and in turn the national security that they must be held accountable.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Prosecuting Trump would s...