I understand, really. I just feel that in 2020 we had a good sense of the full size of anti-Trump voter base regardless of affiliation, and they were many millions more than those who voted for Trump. I believe that the current political climate + the JAN6 spectacle provide a sufficient platform to mobilize those eighty or so million people again.
To extend the metaphor, he plays with marked cards (“Russia, if you’re listening…”)
And do his actual height and weight go into the public record? That (and the resurgent mockery of his patently bogus claims about those stats) might annoy him more than the arrest itself.
I think the answer to this question depends on the final result of the indictment.
- An indictment with a not guilty verdict clearly helps Trump.
- An indictment with a guilty verdict hurts Trump, (see exception below)
- An indictment leading the a plea bargain probably hurts Trump depending on how far removed what he pleads guilty to is from what he was charged with.
- Trump delaying the final verdict through the election, probably hurts him, although not as much as a guilty verdict would.
- The Republicans using their political clout to some how stop the investigation and conviction, also probably hurts more than helps, but hurts less than a full on conviction.
The exception to this it that if the only thing that comes out of all of the investigations is that he gets found guilty of the Stormy Daniels thing, then I think he comes out ahead. That is such weak sauce relative to expectations that it really makes it look that his opponents had noting better that they could pin on him. Sort of like the White water investigation culminating in Lewinsky.
And if he loses the primary, then he gets to claim that a Republican rigged the 2024 election. What, you don’t think he has any loyalty to his party, do you?
No, of course not. But only running for president on a major party platform has potential to do serious damage to the country. Him wrecking the GOP is just funny to me.
My question is, Does a Trump indictment help or hurt DeSantis?
If Trump tries to contest his arrest, isn’t up to DeSantis to step in and turn him over to NY Law Enforcement? I’m assuming Trump in in the state of Florida when the indictment comes down.
If Ron doesn’t do anything to fight it, Don can say Ron is part of the conspiracy against him. Yes, Don would probably surrender, but don’t you think that he’d drag Ron into the mud for supporting such a politically motivated action?
If Ron does put up some resistance, Ron loses, since there is nothing he can do. If he supports Don, he is helping his adversary. Even having an affair with a Porno Babe wouldn’t help.
So, if an indictment comes down (and I am not sure this is not merely sabre-rattling), it is bound to be entertaining.
In the primary season, it will hurt him. Some voters who like Trump, but want another nominee for electability reasons, will resent DeSantis for not having offered to try to protect DJT from extradition.
But if anyone other than Trump is nominated, it helps them, in November, seem less extreme to swing voters. Sure, Ron might have gone too far once or twice, but, they will think, he’s not the kind of person who does something crazy people do, like get arrested.
As I have often said, we do not want an indictment, we need a conviction.
Exactly.
I for one hope that our law enforcement agencies are not afraid to try someone and fail. With Trump, I believe there are many instances of available prosecutions, and since none of us are above he law, I hope they are all pursued and tried.
Trying Trump and failing to convict is a fear that should be let go. It’s like giving the fucking clown a green light or something.
If they are certain someone is a crook, but think there is a probability, using admissable evidence, of aquittal or a hung jury, the prosecution has a responsiblity to leave the suspect unarrested. The standard there should be same for rich and famous as for poor and unknown. If the standard is less favorable for the poor and unknown, that constitutes oppression of the poor, besides there being a good chance of it being racist. If the standard is lower for Donald Trump – and I have no reason to think it is – it would be a political prosecution.
I don’t care if the fear of failure is involved, so long as they realize pursuing a weak case is prosecutorial misconduct. And what makes it a weak case isn’t their certainty that the potential defendant is a bad human being, but judgements concerning what would happen at trial.
I didn’t say anything about pursuing a weak case. Sometimes prosecutions fail. Prosecutors across the land have a less than 100% success rate.
That’s because juries are unpredictable, and bench trials can also be unpredictable – and also because prosecutors often charge defendants where the defendant is not provably guilty of the charges.
I don’t see how prosecutors can put a percent number on how strong their case would be, or that every prosecutor needs to use the same method for deciding whether to push the grand jury to vote for an indictment. But for prosecutors who experience fear, fear of acquittal, after study of the evidence, seems to me a reasonable rubric.
It isn’t a strong case if the prosecutor has a considerable fear of acquittal. If the prosecutor thinks they have a strong case, despite it having low jury appeal, either they are considering inadmissable evidence, or fooling themselves. Persuing a case that feels strong, but lacks jury appeal, would be wrong, regardless of whether the defendant has hundreds of millions, or lives in poverty.
I’ve heard that it’s not a piece, but an elaborate combover that’s woven and fluffed and spray-lacquered in place. In his natural hair state he must look like this:
I agree with Stranger. As I said in the OP, even after 4 years of insanity trump still got more votes in 2020 than any sitting president in history, only losing because even more voters were mobilized against him. That’s scary.
That will be very interesting to see how DeSantis tries to thread the needle on that situation, if and when it ever happens.
Yeah, but it starts with an indictment.
As far as Trump supporters are concerned I suggest that if Trump is convicted, this will prove he is innocent.
Because they ‘know’ that the last election was fixed, so this is just more of the ‘Trump haters’ lying and fixing things. 
If it actually comes down to a physical arrest, with handcuffs and shit, I’d expect Trump to be incommunicado for most of the duration of his stay. This gives De Santis a window of opportunity to spin it as he sees fit.
Firstly, he’d have to take positive action to defend Trump, while letting Trump be arrested is a passive thing for him - the mechanisms of police action are well-established, and will take action automatically, unless De Santis tells them to stop. That gives De Santis just enough cover to avoid looking like he’s acting against Trump. Maybe add in a touch of Ted Cruz-like, “I was in Cancun that day”.
As well, De Santis can spin it however he wants, without Trump being able to contradict it right away. So spin it like, “Hoo boy, Howdy! Are those effeminate New York City boys going to get it when Trump kicks their asses! Just you watch, the courts have never seen what they’re about to see!” Give it a day or two to build up the narrative of Trump the Jailhouse Bad-ass, and Trump will probably not even try to change it up.
So De Santis skates on this one, I think.
They have no need to ‘prove’ what is already so evident nobody even has to protest for it.
Stranger
So don’t we need to simply accept that Trump supporters, by definition, live in their own reality, and are unreachable by reason, persuasion, logic or their own eyes? We’re past the point where
“Trump supporters believe…” precedes anything that exists on Planet Earth. Essentially, for me, the phrase “Trump supporters” equals “people with no credibility whatsoever” or even
“those who have disqualified themselves from any rational discussion to be held between now and the heat death of the universe.”
I will happily grant them their shrinking 30% or 35% of the voting public, and run roughshod over them in every election for the next two generations, so let’s get on with the program of publicly IDing them as such, and making people stand with them or with us, the rational folks. We need more polarization, not less. I don’t ask much, just for people who aren’t delusional to join together. That’s got to be at least 60% of the voting public.
Very well said. Two thumbs up.
Which also means we (the rational ones) can’t concern ourselves with how the irrational will decide or act. There is no thought we can have, no behavior we can do or not do, no action we can take or not take that will produce an a) predictable and b) useful result from the irrational crowd. Like the Biblical poor, they will simply be with us, an intractable irreducible burden we must drag into the future with us.
The problem is to get the non-wacko conservatives to vote our way, not vote (R) reflexively. While also not letting the hard-left crowd (often young and impatient) stay home in a fit of ultimately self-destructive pique when the D’s don’t “seize the opportunity to go hard left because no sane human will vote R with TFG on top, therefore we’ll win by a landslide no matter what policies we advocate.” c.f. “Bernie Bro”.
I suspect many conventional conservatives rather like the idea of a permanent R party majority created by impregnable gerrymandering, voter suppression, packed state & federal supreme courts, etc. The 64Trillion dollar question for us is whether they’re willing to risk putting TFG in the White House one more time to achieve that goal. Surely some non-trivial fraction of them are willing to run that risk. Others not. Traditional R’s abstaining are better than traditional Rs voting R, but traditional Rs voting D are twice as valuable to the Ds as are R’s abstaining.
Yes (and thanks for your kind words) this is the group we (rational liberals and centrists) need to peel off. I think the way to do that is to show that electing hard-core batshit RWers is not good FOR THEM (conventional conservatives). With Trump, it’s easy, or should be–he’s established his track record for throwing his own supporters under a fleet of buses the instant they differ with him on anything. DeSantis, and other RW authoritarian types will be tougher, The conventional conservatives will say “Well, he hasn’t fucked us over” to which I’d add “Yet.”
That’s why I don’t shy away from indicting Trump, whatever bump it may (or may not) give him in the GOP polls for the moment. Indict him on a different charge, in a different jurisdiction, on a daily basis, however weak or insubstantial the charges are. Because his supporters claim the strongest case against him (probably the Georgia RICO case) is merely political chicanery. They’re stable at maybe 30-35% of the public (well, not ‘stable’ but you know what I mean) and if they ever get close to 50%, then we’re fucked as a society anyway. The legal system is far from foolproof–it’s designed to let guilty people go free sometimes, as the price we pay for a just society, so I will risk bumping up that 30-35% of nutjobs a bit if he is indicted a few more times, just to ensure that he can’t wiggle out of all the indictments through corrupt judges, secret MAGA jurors, legal technicalities. statutes of limitations expiring, perjured testimony being accepted, etc. Facing a half-dozen active court cases simultaneously is my version of Bannon’s “flooding the zone” philosophy–throw a barrage of shit at him, and some of it’s got to stick.