When we’re discussing facts we can, because they don’t deal in them.
Nor am I in favor of appeasement.
The suggestion made earlier in this thread is that you can’t hold someone accountable for breaking the law, if the current POTUS is a political rival. Because that sets a bad precedent.
You’re now saying that we can’t upset the people who support Trump. What might they think?
Screw that. We have laws, and if you break them, you are subject to a fair trial, and if found guilty you are convicted. End of story.
John Adams once said that we are a government of laws, not of men. He was right.
If you are too afraid to hold someone accountable for serious crimes because you’re worried that an extremism minority might object to it, your priorities are seriously in need of adjustment.
Trump in private is supposedly much more relatable and charismatic than his public persona. I find narcissism very off putting, but it is undeniable that many think Trump has high levels of charisma, and even his detractors who have fallen out with him say he attracts all the energy in the room. Still, it is really hard to think his persona is that different; if nothing else Trump is remarkably consistent.
There is no way Smith spent this much time and effort on this for there to be a plea deal with no prison time. If there is one I think the sentence will be just short enough to give him the delusion, but not the actual possibility, that when he gets out he could be relected.
Supposedly being charged with theft of protected documents makes it so one cannot run for public office (according to The Atlantic). It is telling this specific charge was not pursued in the final list.
I suppose you could speculate that the charge was avoided because the DOJ doesn’t want to be accused of election interference, and pursuing such a charge might ultimately disqualify him from office, thus spurring accusations of political motives behind the prosecution.
However, I was under the impression that Jack Smith was brought in specifically to get away from all of that stuff. So, I don’t subscribe to that theory. I find it more likely that he wasn’t charged because Smith doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to convict him on it, and/or that would be a difficult argument to make in court, especially compared to the other charges which are simpler and faster to prove.
I think it likely that this was not pursued because of a desire to avoid even a greater degree of criticism that this whole process was for political reasons (which occurred in any case). I am less certain this would have not been pursued in other circumstances. But you have much knowledge of these things and I do not.
The explanation I’ve heard/read that makes the most sense to me is this:
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution specifically outlines the qualifications one must have in order to run for the office of president (age of 35 and a natural-born citizen). The restriction imposed by Congress with respect to breaking certain laws is layered on top of the Constitutional requirements and, if reviewed by the Supreme Court, very likely will not withstand that test. Congress cannot write a law that enhances the requirements of the Constitution – at least, not with this SCOTUS.
So it makes little sense for Jack Smith to include a charge that will test this issue. It will just be a distraction as well as an invitation to be overturned on appeal. It will also look political. He wishes to avoid all this as much as possible.
He also has had great success in knowing, much better than conventional GOP campaign consultants knew, what is the line, in terms of ethnic and racial slurs, that can and cannot be crossed in national American politics. And no, he doesn’t just say what comes to his mind. We all can think of a few traditional slurs he stays away from.
One possibility is that this kind of success was due to a few lucky calls. If so, it’s plausible his luck will run out. I think it’s a little more likely he’s smart than lucky. But as with luck vs genius in the stock market, it is hard to know.
I’ve posted that his legal troubles won’t hurt him. I’m not taking that back yet, because he has had small polling ups and down before. But I have to say the indictments reduced his Nov. 2024 electability more than I expected:
I haven’t seen as clear movement, as seen in the above link, in head in head Biden-Trump polling, but maybe those are a trailing indicator.
I disagree. These troubles may not affect him as much as Democrats might like. But they will cost him mega donations and they will cost him the election in the likely event he is the candidate (along with certain court decisions). The situation says much about his judgement, and the reasons he has given for needing these documents are weak, especially given his cozy relationships with some intemperate leaders.
It’s not a question of ignoring them, it’s a question of driving out as many anti-Trump votes as humanly possible. That’s why acknowledging that Trump absolutely will abuse the power of the presidency if he gets it again is important.
What you should be doing is donating to, and volunteering for, every Democratic candidate at every level in your area. Dogcatcher to President, with all the stops in between. And you should be encouraging everyone you know to do the same.
I’m wondering about the strategy of this. Were they to submit this charge now, it’s obvious that the Republicans would latch onto this as a “purely political” act, since they’re already doing this anyways. But having part of the sentence being barred from political office, it gives that claim a much better veneer of plausibility.
But then I think: Can they still charge him with this later? If they can secure a conviction on the current set of charges, doesn’t that establish a pretty solid presumption that he also stole the documents? Hard to have them and not return them if he didn’t steal them in the first place.
And at that point, the political issues will be less significant. “He’s already guilty, and in jail, and you still think he should be president? Fuck off!”
Or we could arrive at this position right now anyway.
I don’t understand the point of trying to seem like the Dems care about the GOP’s opposition and accusations. It’s been obvious for months (to me, for decades) that the GOP is just obstinate naysaying and name-calling. Those who are going to buy it have already bought it. Those who haven’t need to be addressed as adults: “Look, we all understand their game, they have abandoned being a serious political party with policies we disagree over. Now they’re simply a silly cult professing to believe in fantastical nonsense and gibberish, Ignore them and let the majority of sensible Americans make the rules for a while until these nutballs come to their senses.”
But that’s the real question. Have they all bought it? We know there are a lot of low-information voters out there, and a lot of people who don’t bother to vote. How many of them will be swayed to come out and vote this time, based on all this?
We know they’re out there, because millions of them came out in 2020, who didn’t in 2016. Democrats pulled the bigger slice that time, but will they the next time?
So I can see someone deciding that charging Trump with the one crime that has an explicitly political punishment attached is taking just a little too much risk. There’s at least some people out there who would be convinced by this, who otherwise wouldn’t be convinced, that it really was all political.
Right. For me, not charging him with the crime that happens to also bar him from office undermines (just a little, but still) the idea that this ISN’T political — the idea that he’s just an ordinary citizen being charged for crimes for which there is good evidence, no more and no less.
I understand there is evidence that he did other crimes he isn’t charged with in this indictment, for various standard-practice strategic reasons (New Jersey loose documents, for example), so my argument isn’t strong. But the “mishandling” non-charge seems so well suited to Trump’s actions, it’s odd to not include it.
And, the lawmakers who passed it included the ban from office for a good reason! Lord knows he SHOULD be banned from office.
I get why they’re not including it, and I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. I just wanted to emphasize how Trump obviously committed that particular crime, and how not charging him with it is yet more proof that this is the very opposite of a witch hunt.