There is only one reason that the DOJ would refuse to prosecute Donald Trump.

[kentuck]

And that is whether or not Merrick Garland thought it would be acceptable to the Democratic Party base. That would be a purely political reason.

So long as he thinks the Party is not ready to accept such a cowardice decision, it will not happen.

This is just my opinion.

But, he should never get a hint that the Democratic Party is ready to accept whatever happens in this investigation as alright if it is approved by the DOJ.

I'm hoping that the Party has more courage than that.

It is a complicated investigation and, as yet, it is not a given that the DOJ will not prosecute.

But the time is growing nigh.

[Ms. Toad]

1. I'm sorry - but I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying.

Are you saying it is cowardice to prosecute, or cowardice to refuse to prosecute?

What are you suggesting the Democratic Party should have the courage to do?

[kentuck]

5. With the evidence already presented...

..it would be an act of cowardice, unworthy of a national political Party, not to prosecute.

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Thanks. Mostly.

So you are suggesting that if Garland does not prosecute, it is because he believes he is doing the bidding of a Democratic Party that is not ready to accept prosecution?

And that the Democratic Party should send the message that it wants prosecution, regardless of the outcome of the hearings?

[kentuck]

9. No, sorry.

I am not saying that the Democratic Party is not ready to prosecute. As a majority, they may be?

What I am saying is that there is enough evidence to charge him, and the only reason they would not charge him, is that they believe the decision would be accepted by the Party as a majority.

I'm not sure that is the case.

At this point, I'm not sure the Party should send a message either way, but surely, there should not be hint that it is OK not to prosecute the case against the former president because the Party would accept the decision without protest .

[Ms. Toad]

16. Now I got it - and I agree.

But from two perspectives -

Garland's decision to prosecution (or not) should not be governed by partisan politics.
The Democratic Party should not be sending a political message to the DOJ about prosecution. It was bad when the Republicans did it - and we should not be copying bad behavior.

[kentuck]

23. I agree that ...

it should not be governed by "partisan politics" but it is all about politics. I am simply saying that if the evidence is there to charge a former president, a present civilian, then the DOJ should not think that it would be OK with the Party not to charge him.

[Ms. Toad]

29. That's where we differ.

What a party thinks should be irrelevant to the DOJ - and I don't think the party should be signaling one way or the other as to the DOJ's non-partisan job.

[kentuck]

30. Do you think it was illegal to obstruct the Electoral College on January 6th?

Do you think it was illegal to try to get the GA SoS to find 11,780 votes?

Would you be OK with a DOJ that was willing to overlook those crimes, for whatever reason?

I don't see that as interfering with the DOJ if they believe your position is courageous but choose to decide otherwise. I don't see the great sin of "signaling" a moral position or a legal position to the DOJ in that instance. If they have a justifiable reason, let them defend it.

[Ms. Toad]

32. None of us know what evidence the DOJ has.

The decision to prosecute must be based on that evidence. It should not be made based on politics, nor should a political party attempt to influence it. Choose a person who is qualified and who will do the job based on evidence, not politics - and let them do their job.

What we know from the hearings, or elsewhere, is not necessarily the same as what the DOJ knows or can use as evidence. We need to let them do their job. Their job isn't to defend against a politically motivated (i.e. the Democratic party things there should be a prosecution) demand. It is to gather evidence, to evaulate the evidence in their position against the law, and to prosecute if warranted.

[kentuck]

33. True and...

..."and to prosecute if warranted". Nothing more is expected.

[emulatorloo]

2. DOJ is supposed to be apolitical and uphold the law. Barr was very political, but that is not how

the DOJ is supposed to work.

[Mr.Bill]

19. In his brief tenure, Barr

managed to make many people forget what the DoJ is all about.

Mission accomplished, I would say.

[Hortensis]

20. Agree. And with Mr. Bill unfortunately.

[Locutusofborg]

3. I have another reason

"When you strike at a king, you must kill him."--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Merrick Garland may not yet be convinced of a slam dunk case & conviction against Trump. A jury trial that ends in an acquittal or a hung jury would help to propel Trump back into the White House. Only one MAGA cultist on a jury or one juror who figures they will be handsomely rewarded for not convicting Trump could lead to a 2024 electoral disaster.

[kentuck]

6. NO offense...

...but that would be a cowardly reason, in my opinion.

[emulatorloo]

8. Building an airtight case is in no way "cowardly." That's what good prosecutors do.

Also no offense…

[kentuck]

10. There is no such thing as an "airtight" case.

But it must be resolved in a court of law and not in room full of politicians or a discussion group.

[emulatorloo]

11. Let's not play semantic games.

[kentuck]

14. What would you consider an "airtight" case?

Above and beyond what evidence you have already seen?

Not trying to play semantics? I don't see where you got that idea?

[emulatorloo]

21. Try an online dictionary. See definition 2

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airtight

airtight

air·​tight | ˈer-ˌtīt

Definition of airtight
1 : impermeable to air or nearly so
an airtight seal

2a : having no noticeable weakness, flaw, or loophole
an airtight argument
b : permitting no opportunity for an opponent to score
an airtight defense

[Hortensis]

22. For every "coward" you imagine in the Democratic base are probably

a whole bunch who are fully able to feel angry vengefulness, even if unaware of and unable and/or unwilling to understand the issues and principles involved.

[kentuck]

25. I tend to agree with you but I do not imagine the Democratic base as "cowards"..

..and there are many who feel "angry vengefulness". But, at this time, Merrick Garland has said that he will follow the evidence wherever it leads, however high.

I am willing to take him at his word at this time, but the base expects him to make a courageous decision. And the evidence is pointing toward charging a former president with crimes against our country and our Constitution.

[Hortensis]

28. Umhm. But there's never just one reason that goes into any of

these decisions. If only there were. We could all be president or AG.

Maybe if they were, national elections would instead have been designed as random drawings of names put in by the millions who thought they'd like to serve a term.

[kentuck]

31. And you would still support them and those decisions..

...no matter how reprehensible, so long as it served the Party?

[empedocles]

12. A major factor is to continue making the cases up the chain of command, as

DOJ, and the Committee, are doing

[emulatorloo]

13. +1

[kentuck]

17. I would agree with that.

And I think the Committee has been doing a great job.

I'm just saying there will come a time and a decision will have to be made.

When that time comes, do it out of courage, not out of cowardice. The country deserves it. The Party deserves it.

[milestogo]

15. This is all just your opinion.

There could be other reasons.

[kentuck]

18. What other reasons do you envision?

Yes, it is my opinion, as I so stated.

[emulatorloo]

24. Others have provided you with examples upthread of how good prosecutors work as they construct cases

[onenote]

26. In the real world, there almost never is only "one reason" for anything.

[kentuck]

27. I just think this was the appropriate time for this discussion.

I'm hoping I am not the only one that has been thinking about this?

[gulliver]

34. Gotta disagree this time.

First, I don't think there's really any such thing as a Democratic Party base. It's an everchanging set, like the "American People." Who is in the set depends on who is talking at the moment and who happens to be listening. So, there's really no Democratic base entity to ask whether any decision Garland makes is acceptable or not.

Second, to the extent that there is a subset of the Democratic Party that can define itself (not as "the base" but) the "I wish to be considered a judge of Garland's decision, although no one asked me" group, that group unfortunately and ironically jeopardizes prosecution.

It's been noted that the DOJ's job is to enforce the law and not to respond to anything else. Therefore, it would be better for the odds of prosecution if there were nothing else to respond to, such as carping criticism and demands from the aforementioned "non-base" judge group. Thanks to them, if Garland decides to prosecute, he'll be accused of caving in to the "angry unelecteds" who demanded it, not following the law. Both Garland and the law would be weakened if or when that happened.

From what I've seen from the guy, I see no reason to think he's not doing exactly the right thing.

[kentuck]

35. Well-reasoned response.

I would agree about the "Democratic base".

But I do think the patience is limited.

There is no reason to believe Garland will not do exactly what he said about following the evidence.

Thanks!