More ranting at Trump

[Septua]

The legal analysts on MSNBC continue to frustrate us non-legal members of the country relative to the deferential treatment Trump is receiving from the DOJ, in general.

And the "precedent" thing continues to come up. Just heard a long evaluation from Danny Cevallos saying no matter what Garland has said about 'following the facts and holding people accountable' he will at some point consider the potential ramifications of charging a former President.

Trump created a Presidential 'precedent' when he took office. He violated virtually every precedent and canon that had existed for decades. He abused his power and debased the Office. He tried to invalidate the 2020 election, failed at that attempt, then tried to obstruct the Peaceful Transfer of Power. He was, is and continues to be a clear and present danger to the Country and the Constitution. Steve Schmidt says he is "one of the most dangerous Americans in history." He has done and will do, anything to remain in power, regardless the cost to the country, its people or democracy. He represents the nth degree of narcissism and should not be allowed to hold an office of authority at any level of government.

50 years ago, when the US Senate had more honorable members than opportunists, Trump would have been convicted in one of the impeachments, maybe the first, certainly the second. But those days are gone. The only way to shut him down now is via the courts. And, Trump won't be the end of the threat. More will follow and need to know accountability will be enforced.

Charging a former President with a crime will set a precedent. But it's time to set one.

[Septua]

1. Schmidt on Trump

Link to tweet

[Irish_Dem]

2. I hope Garland considers the ramifications of NOT indicting Trump.

Damage to rule of law.
Damage to US standing in the world.
Damage caused by the many criminals who will see POTUS as the perfect spot to operate.

This is only a partial list.

Yes we must set a precedent.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. There is precedent for charging a President.

Exhibit 1: Richard M. Nixon

[Septua]

5. Almost charged?

I just now Googled, thinking about what little I remembered from the Nixon thing. According to the link, a grand jury was prepared to charge him, which I didn't know. Ford's pardon pre-emptied that I suppose. What I remembered was supposedly a Senator telling Nixon he should resign before being impeached and convicted.

But that point is something Garland should review in his considerations.

https://www.newsweek.com/grand-jury-indict-richard-nixon-watergate-1195613

[SCantiGOP]

11. Goldwater and another 2 GOP Senators

They went to Nixon and told him that he had no chance of winning a trial in the Senate. I think it was Goldwater who told him he could count on no more than 20 votes. Nixon’s presidency was over at that moment.

[Brainfodder]

4. Set the P! Can't think of a more deserving _______________ for the honor, alive today?

"Set the P!"

Good for T-Shirts?

[brooklynite]

6. "the deferential treatment Trump is receiving from the DOJ"

Back to "AG Garland doesn't REALLY want to prosecute" rants.

Garland has shown for 18 months how he approaches these prosecutions deliberately and methodically. And the Armchair Prosecutors will never be happy.

[Septua]

7. No comparison between Tricky Dick and Trump...

..as I view it. Nixon was hostile and vengeful but just trying to get an edge on the competition. Hell, they all do that.

[brush]

15. Agreed. Nixon was a petty criminal compared to trump, a veritable walking,...

talking and active crook still trying to hold onto important government secrets.

[SheltieLover]

8. Well beyond time. We ended up with tfg because nixon was pardoned.

[Mr.Bill]

9. I'm older now, (69) and my brain is not as organized as when I was young.

Every now and then I suddenly see something differently. My opinion of Garland and how he is doing his job has run the gamut, depending on a new twist in the investigation, a new-to-me legal principle, or just my emotion in the moment.

So, something that just occurred to me is why would Garland be doing all that he is doing, like serving that search warrant that he knew would create a shit-storm, if he didn't intend to indict and try Trump in court? I think Garland's actions are not the actions of someone who is afraid to charge a former president with a serious crime.

[wnylib]

16. Exactly.

I never doubted Garland's intentions or the fact that he has been investigating and collecting info from the start.

It is becoming clear that a larger, more threatening conspiracy than J6 has been going on for a long time. I believe that Garland is intent on getting all the main players in the group.

[SCantiGOP]

10. My first vote was against Nixon in 1972

I despised him, and it was with considerable second thoughts that I agreed with Ford’s decision to pardon him and move the country forward.
I was dead wrong.
Had Nixon been tried, I think Bush/Cheney would have been more reluctant about lying us into a war.
If Trump is not indicted and held accountable, every future President will have a blueprint of how to overthrow our constitutional republic.

[Evolve Dammit]

17. Agreed! It set in motion the liberties taken by Shrub/Cheney and now worse.

[wnylib]

20. 1972 was my first vote, too.

I never agreed with the Nixon pardon or the idea of moving on, but I knew a lot of people who did.

As I see it now, with all that is being uncovered now and apparently will be as investigations proceed, there is much more at stake than what future presidents might get away with, although that definitely matters, too.

There is apparently a cabal of traitors, some still operating within the government, and others who have left official government positions but continue to operate through contacts. They need to be found, ousted, tried, and convicted. This is much bigger than we thought.

[Saboburns]

12. Only 1 other POTUS was a criminal. That's why none of them have been charged. Trump will be charged

The reason no other POTUS was ever charged is because none of them committed any crimes. Not because of 'precedent'. When the media start discussing charging a POTUS, 'precedent' is discussed 100% of the time. The fact POTUS ever committed a crime is discussed 0% of the time.

Trump is criminal. Trump will be charged. Trump will go to prison.

[OMGWTF]

13. Take a look at the 1956 Republican platform to see how fked-up they've become.

The Rethuglicans didn't even have a platform in 2020 other than "Whatever Trump said." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/

[Pepsidog]

14. For pure argument sake let's presume that the IC community finds zero evidence that the documents

Last edited Sat Aug 27, 2022, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

were not seen by any foreign power and there was no harm to national security. Does Trump get indicted? I suspect unless they can prove that there was some kind of harm committed against the country he will not indict. The law doesn't require this harm but as a matter of policy the DOJ will not induct unless evidence exists that Trump or someone on his behalf attempted or did sell or distribute any of the information. That Trump will absolutely be indicted, we don't have enough information yet. We all sat through the Mueller probe and listened nightly to incredible stories delivered by Maddow only to be devasted at the conclusion. And yes, I know that Mueller never considered indicting Trump because of the BS DOJ memo from the 70’s.

[Evolve Dammit]

18. that sounds totally plausible.

[flying_wahini]

19. I think Garland knew when Israel complained about security after Trumps mtg with Lavrov.

[link:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-russia-israel-intelligence-share-isis-mossad-spies-sergei-lavrov-kislyak-us-a8071086.html|


No telling what all tRump and his minions did. I really want them all up against the wall but
I will settle for life in Prison. Every single one of them.

[Grasswire2]

21. it is only an OPINION that says a former president can't be charged.

It is not a law.

It is a memo written by a partisan.

And if a memo written by a partisan over-rides written established criminal law, then we are governed by decree. Fiat.

And that is un-American. Banana republic stuff.

A law is established by votes of elected representatives to whom we people have given consent to write them, implement them.

A decree in opposition to established law is tyranny, in that we cannot give our consent to be governed thus.