Good article, reminding me once again that probably the best route to see Trump behind bars is through New York state prosecutors (and maybe other states) bringing indictments.
From the article:
I think Biden is dead wrong on this. Not prosecuting a former president for a crime that there are reasonable grounds he committed is very bad for democracy, particularly if the alleged crime was committed before he became president, as the hush payment was.
That policy says that the president is above the law, just like a feudal monarch, and undercuts the rule of law. If the president doesn’t have to obey the law, why should other elected officials? why should I?
Putin, of course, would be in full agreement with Biden on this point.
Sure, put in extra prosecutorial reviews, to ensure that the prosecution is firmly grounded in the principles of the criminal law, and isn’t for political purposes, but if the evidence is there, strong enough to meet the normal test for a prosecution, the prosecution should occur.
If the bank loaned him money without examining the appropriate assessment of assets and tax returns, that’s on them. I’ve applied for business loans, and the first thing they ask for is your tax return. I’ve applied for mortages and the bank requires an assessor to determine the home’s value. Banks don’t just hand out money based on word of mouth. You have to have collateral, and the bigger the loan, the more hoops you’re going to jump through.
That’s not how a fraud charge works. If you give the other party false information, for the purpose of getting them to give you a financial advantage, that’s attempt fraud. If they don’t detect the false information and loan you money, that’s fraud.
If you were correct that it’s “on them”, no-one would ever be convicted of fraud.
The other side of this is, if your paperwork disqualifies you, you can still get the loan if you get a guarantor to sign on. Any speculations on who that might be? /s
Modnote: Back off the personal attacks. This is close to a warning.
I don’t want to see Trump off the hook for anything, but consider that whenever Democrats break a norm, Republicans are going to counter by breaking it ten times more and then adding some new norms to it.
If we decide to go hard after Trump, knowing his base believes (falsely) that the charges are contrived and fake (again, wrongly), we can 100% expect them to contrive charges against Biden and nail him to the wall at the first opportunity. In fact, that threshold may already have been crossed and we may already be on the way to further unforeseen consequences.
Whatever mark Trump does or doesn’t leave on the Republican party, he’s definitely left a norm that whatever we do, they’ll return the favor ten times as vigorously with a tenth of the pretext. Until we disarm that specific bomb, we’d be wise to be careful playing with it.
On the brighter side: If Biden lets Trump off the hook, thus establishing that presidents are above the law, then Biden himself will then have license to break all the laws he needs to break to get his way. He could then use that kind of power (the better if Dems control the Senate, to be sure) for partisan ends to rip the GOP to shreds in any way he is able, without the need for any legal or ethical compunction.
Biden, of course, is not the guy who will do that. But if Republicans want to scream that “Dems do it too!!!”, it’s at least a nice fantasy that they might be right about that!
Not a concern. It’ll be State charges IF Trump ever pays. Biden is trying to be diplomatic. He doesn’t have to do anything to Trump.
By the way, Trump possibly owns a pizza joint with a child sex ring operating out of the basement. It’s possible.
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. If Biden does that, then Trump The Sequel (this time in a dress) will do the same and worse.
I want him held accountable somehow, but the blowback had better be well-anticipated and well worth it.
You know, I misread that as Trump The Squeal and thought: Hey, that’s good!
I’ve been picturing Biden saying "I just want him out of DC, even if we let him skate on everything for the good of th- -"SLAP!- - (that’s Harris backhanding her boss).
Even if Unca Joe ain’t tough enough sometimes, Kamala can make up for it. I hope that applies to dozens of miscreants… many of them related to Mr. Donald J…
I was going to suggest the kids in cages program, but it was, of course, started by President Obama, so there was nothing trump could do about it.
The violation of constitutional rights at Lafayette Square should count for something. It wasn’t much, but it was well documented, for evidentiary purposes.
The norm that we’re facing right now is that when criminals get caught, they get punished. We should absolutely not break that norm.
It’s not a norm that former presidents don’t get punished for their crimes, because normally, presidents aren’t criminals.
Trump is a real trail blazer!
Right. So the norm we’re about to create is one of prosecuting criminal former presidents. As I said, I would be correct and just for this to happen to Trump (and any other case where the evidence supports it).
We just have to be conscious that once we establish this norm, we can expect that Republicans will contrive a fake pretext to do the same thing (or even worse) to every Democratic president in the future.
It’s customary to end a post with a firm opinion on the right course of action, but I don’t have one. Neither prospect is very appealing to me, but I’m not sure we can afford to let Trump skate.
A good compromise might be to expose Trump’s crimes and take down his fake Potemkin mob-fueled real-estate empire, but not actually prosecute him. For a narcissist like that, exposing his lies and stripping his grandiose pretenses are as good as a death sentence. Plus it would put a nail in the coffin of his hellspawn’s aspirations to follow in their father’s footsteps. I also doubt any future president will have that kind of Achilles heel to attack.
You seem to be assuming that the Republicans would not think of prosecuting a former president, unless the Democrats do so first.
This is the party whose national Conventions have been led in chants of “lock her up” by the speakers, and where the President himself has encouraged chants of “lock them up” at his rallies over the past four years.
I think it’s already occurred to them as a viable option.
Legally, how do you take away someone’s property because of alleged crimes, without actually prosecuting them?
Read up on RICO when you have a chance.
There’s also forfeiture, a controversial process by which the government confiscates anything of yours they think is worth something, based solely on a suspicion or accusation of some wrongdoing. The IRS is infamous for this, and rumor has it that Trump has some issues with them. Rumor is all it takes.
States can do this too. Trump has an asset or two in New York just ripe for the taking.
If either the Biden DoJ or the New York authorities want to go after Trump’s ass and assets, it’s entirely plausible.
(ETA: You’re in Canada, ain’tcha? Maybe they don’t do things this way there.)
I’m under no such illusions. Maybe we’ve passed that point of no return, maybe not. I know that going after Trump will take us past that point. Maybe we have no choice, I don’t know.
The Mueller investigation recouped some $22 million through asset forfeiture. But to me, the important thing isn’t transferring Trump’s assets to the government, it’s to put so much pressure on his shady business dealings that his shady partners cut ties with him (and possibly call in loans) to avoid criminal jeopardy themselves (not to mention the hits to their own businesses).
Trump is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption. He’s never been a smart man or a dangerous man without his enablers. Sack the enablers, leave him flopping in the wind. Leave him as a loser that nobody will back.
Sure, there’s the civil side of RICO. But if the concern is that it’s not appropriate for the DOJ to charge a former president with criminal offences under RICO or another statute, is there really any difference in the public opinion between that and having the DOJ use RICO’s civil remedies and forfeiture provisions against a former president? Either way, the DOJ under Biden would be seen as going after a former president.