Even so, it would be harder to justify going after a previous president who had documents that were unimportant. I was somewhat surprised by the little we know about the claimed contents of these things, which sound substantial to me.
That’s the part that bothers me. If this happens, sure, it’s legal, but it just plays straight into the GOP propaganda. “Oh, they lost in court because they couldn’t prove anything! Now they’re just throwing charges at the wall to see what sticks! This PROVES it was all political, all along!”
Like they’re not saying that now? Like they’ll ever change their tune, given enough evidence? Like there’s any pleasing them, ever?
It is to laugh.
I wasn’t an “end justifies the means” kind of guy until the GOP came along, but now, what the hell, I just want them crushed by any means necessary, and let them call me names–they’ve already turned the amp up to 11 on me, and I can still feel good about myself.
But again, it resonates with the (hypothetical) fence-sitters, and gives those in the party who aren’t keen on Trump on a personal level an excuse to vote for him.
One thing they’ve accomplished is to eliminate (at least to vastly reduce) the number of fence sitters. Those that are inclined to think of voting MAGA as a reasonable choice have already gone there, and those are aren’t so inclined have decided that they’ll never go there.
And your basis for claiming this…?
Have you read anything in the past decade about the increasing polarization in American voting practices? I have, and I think it’s understated.
That’s hardly a cite. And anyway, how does that relate to the polarization of the electorate? Not sure what you mean by polarization “in American voting practices.”
Yes, that part is an opinion. The part that’s a cite of sorts is the thousands of articles written over the past few years noting the extreme polarization of American voting practices. If you want a specific cite for that, I recommend you do an internet search for “U.S. voting polarization” and read a few hundred, or however many you need to be convinced that I’m describing a commonplace phenomenon.
”The Truth About the Trump Indictment” by Trump Attorney General Bill Barr
Two thirds of this article, out today, is what Democrats might hope. It makes a great case that how secret the secret documents are is irrelevant:
But it also makes a case (positive from Barr’s POV) that punishing Trump is going to pave the way to punishing Democrats:
He’s on to something. Punishing Trump for major lawbreaking will facilitate sending Democrats to prison for minor lawbreaking. While Barr won’t say it that way, that’s his implication. And that’s a big reason why Trump’s indictment matters.
Will putting Trump in prison for a spell be worth it? Hard to say. But I think any Democrats who don’t have mixed feeling, regarding a Trump conviction, will be missing the big picture.
And there could also be a downside.
I’m a-okay with this. Clearly he’s asserting this was not the case with Hillary. Whatever. But if wrongdoing is now discovered, charged, and proven, followed by an appropriate sentence (which does NOT mean equal to Trump’s), that’s as it should be.
This also means Biden is off limits till after he’s out of office. That’s the standard that was applied to Trump.
Democrats don’t have a problem with prosecuting Democrats, AFAICT. If they broke the law, go at 'em. The Hillary comparison is nonsense (not surprising coming from serial liar Barr), of course.
This Democrat does.
Almost everyone violates the law, from ghetto teenagers to presidents to (extremely rarely) me.
Only the most serious miscreants should be charged with crimes. Is there a way to measure that? No. Can it be done with complete consistency and fairness? No.
Why the rule of law suffers when we have too many laws
U.S. law enforcement is often needed, but is generally too harsh. I don’t exactly know what to do about it, but an ethic of seeing punishment as always being a sad outcome, regardless of who the accused is, could be a start.
Another start is to only worry about overcharging, not undercharging.
P.S. This is coming out of the earlier finding that when a national leader is imprisoned, it usually leads to repeats.
Exactly! Why do many Republican voters (plus PhillyGuy) assume Democratic voters are averse to “their” elected officials receiving just punishment for any misdeeds?
Maybe because they assume we share their penchant for cults of personality (despite their put-downs of us vis-a-vis Obama, we generally do not.)
And, I don’t think PhillyGuy’s last post necessarily contradicts this. I agree minor transgressions shouldn’t always be punished, or punished severely. The current system gets this about right, I think, except for the racial bias.
Letting Trump slide because of a fear of Democrats who commit crimes being prosecuted is silly, to be nice about it. It also sets a regrettable precedent as concerns the seriousness with which we take our national security.
When Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich’s actions regarding Obama’s U.S. Senate seat came to light, Illinois Democrats were among the loudest calling for his head.
And look who pardoned the bastard.
According to Wikipedia, Trump commuted Blagojevich’s sentence, rather than a full pardon.
I don’t buy it. Hillary wasn’t prosecuted because there wasn’t evidence of criminal activity sufficient to convict. That doesn’t change if Republicans decide to go after her. And it also ignores the obvious facts - Republicans did try to go after her.
Republicans are already doing all the bad things you’re worried about. The answer is not to go easy on them, it’s too fight as hard as we can within the law to defeat them electorally and (when applicable) hold them accountable for their criminal actions.
Indeed, we Dems sometimes err in the other direction — Al Franken’s political death (not criminal charges), for example.