Yes, with Nixon, he had basically already suffered great loss as a result of the Watergate scandal. He lost the presidency, and his reputation was in the trash. Aside from maybe a few committed individuals he lost all public support and had no chance of continuing in politics. With Trump things are different, he has a fanatical base of personality who are not bothered in the least by his criminal activities, even a criminal conviction is unlikely to eliminate him as a political force. So imprisonment and political isolation is the only thing that will work.
Unfortunately it not just Trump. The DOJ subpoena’s and seizures are going far and wide and all on the GOP side. We are in uncharted territory. What do you do when 40% of the population and one of only two viable political parties embraces lawlessness? One party rule due to the other side having been imprisoned, even if they were justly imprisoned, is not democracy. But letting it slide will just end up with one party rule by the criminal side. Its hard to see a good way out.
After further discussion in the mod loop, it’s been determined you are a troublesome poster who does not take direction from staff. You’re entitled to have contrary opinions, but your persistent insults to others who don’t agree with you have cost you your posting privileges. Ban is made permanent.
Or maybe if he was convicted, Donald would get a sympathy vote. We don’t know the political effect and should try to put that aside.
While I want way more pardons and grants of clemency, they shouldn’t be given out before a conviction.
I am against Merrick Garland telling career prosecutors who to indict, so I certainly don’t want the President doing it.
The whole idea that political consideraton should be paramount is a mistake. Now, I think there might be some hesitation to indict for a charge that provides a right to a jury trial. This is because the unprecedented, much bigger than O.J., prejudicial pre-trial publicity makes a hung jury more likely. But the prosecutors should be making their decisions based on the non-political grounds of did he do it and and can a jury be convinced.
As insurrection leadership goes, this one was pitifully weak. What kind of an insurrection is it where the commander-in-chief doesn’t call out a single tank? A possible answer: One where the prosecution was over-charging.
Maybe charges of inciting a riot would stick, but I wonder whether the instructions Trump gave were clear enough for this.
I’m not saying I’d vote to acquit. I hope I would consider all evidence and listen to what fellow jurors, especially any who hadn’t made up their minds before the trial began, thought. But I think there’s a good chance I’d conclude – probably, yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, no.
Now, it they indicted him for something not requiring weeks of partially contradictory testimony, like removing National Archives property from a federal building, I see much greater chances of a fair conviction.
If a former President can’t get a fair trial, what hope is there for the rest of us? That’s what bugs me about threads like this.
The ONLY reason he would not get a fair trial is that there are so many brain-dead morons who would ignore iron clad evidence of guilt if they were on a jury.
(replace the name ‘Stern’ with ‘Trump’ and this short video pretty well sums up my feelings)
I can see no advantage to pardoning Trump. You may be certain that if ever he was pardoned he would use the opportunity to grab the media spotlight and continue to cause all the damage he’s capable of doing to our democracy.
Insurrection is insurrection. Doesn’t matter if you try to rob a bank with a knife instead of a gun. Doesn’t matter that Trump was too stupid to get the military on his side and in fact alienated the high command. Trump had a direct hand in insurrection, in trying to over turn Georgia, ad nauseum.
I get it. You’re just “trying to understand” and just “asking questions” and just “trying to have a balanced view.” Keep it up, comrade.
IMHO, the long-term good of the country requires a fair trial, and, if convicted, a serious custodial sentence for Trump. January 6, 2021 is what we got for coddling him and pretending that there was some normality attached to him or his enablers. That cannot go unpunished.
Well, it is a customary military punishment, and there would be a certain irony in the draft dodger getting that. I happen to be 100% opposed to capital punishment, so AFIAMC, that option’s not tenable.
BTW, I didn’t mean we all coddled the clown. I should have said “January 6, 2021 is what we got for the Republicans coddling him and pretending, etc.”
I remember in '16 he stated, to tons of applause, that he’d be keeping Guantanamo open, and filling it with some bad dudes, so 10 out of 10 for irony.
Having said that, these questions are always tricky. What’s the best course to prevent Trump from doing any more harm, free up rational republicans* from any influence of the MAGA, and not martyr him to his faithful? Good question, I don’t know, so I’d say we should not make any deals, he’d just do everything he could to stiff us.
*I’m convinced there are plenty of people in the GOP who would be secretly delighted if they could just shrug and tell their constituents ‘nothing I can do about it’.
For the luvva Christ, no! Trump is incapable of not lying. Putting him on national TV to supposedly confess might get the biggest audience in US history, and he would absolutely ignore all agreements and instruction — in the same way that candidates ignore moderator instruction during presidential debates.
And then if some sort of judge or moderator tried to keep him on track, the judge would look either impotent or dictatorial. Trump’s fanbase would get major motivation, and if he was not pardoned after making his bullshit confession his fan base would be violently motivated.
A pardon based on a public confession could only be a disaster.
That isn’t really a serious problem. Historical experience (e.g. the brief “Era of Good Feeling” after the Federalist Party melted down) suggests that a new party system would rapidly evolve out of divisions within the (formerly) dominant party.
Yes it is democracy. Just because one side chooses not to play by the agreed upon rules is not an accuse to ignore the rule of laws. The rule of law is what a democracy is founded on. Your justly imprisoned statement is just that, breaking the rules should have real conciquences in a democracy, if not it means anarchy.
Words and rules must have meaning. When there is a dispute then judges decide who is right and who is wrong. Democracy in action, its not just a popularity contest or reality show.
Well, for one, it would not be live, it would be taped, for the very reasons that you mention. It would have to be approved of before any pardons are signed.
And also, I bring it up simply because I know its a condition he would never agree to.
How about one where the CinC knew any such unlawful orders would not be obeyed? He was not using the military to overthrow our legal government, he was using a mob of rabble. Because rabble were the only forces he could count on to follow unlawful orders / requests / demands / suggestions. That it was a shitily conceived plan doesn’t alter the fact that was his plan.
Your continued excuse-making for clear-cut treason left you with little credibility earlier in the thread. Now you’ve got zero. Good move.
This is Great Debates. We encourage you to address and debate the merits of other posts. We do not allow insulting other posters. Please remember where you are and please avoid this in the future.
And even if a large part of the current Republican Party ends up in jail over all this, there are other people waiting in the wings who could replace them. A new Republican Party would rise from the ashes. The only real question would be if these Replacement Republicans would be better or worse than the current lot.
There’s a lot of robustness built into the US political party systems. When almost every political office from the President down to the dogcatcher is determined by party affiliations, you’ve got a pretty deep bench to use to promote people up the ladder. Governors become Presidents, State Senators become Federal Senators, and the like.
