No, because laws were broken, and knowingly broken, by a person who was sworn to uphold the law, and who bragged about how much upholding of the law he’d do. Making this deal would establish the precedent that presidents, or even just candidates for president, could do whatever the fuck they wanted to do, and then get a “Get our of jail free” card by just offering to quit if they’re caught.
All of that is bad. Sometimes you just have to do the hard, unpleasant work, in order to do the right thing. We’re not going to take the easy way out just because Trump is a complete shit person to deal with.
I can’t directly address what someone else seems to imply in a roundabout way. I can only tell you, explicitly, my own views about prosecution and lawbreakers.
Because unlike so many Trumpists, we don’t take our marching orders from TV personalities? How dare I actually have my own independent thoughts on Trump’s impact on the decline of the United States.
Because Democrats (or as you put it, “Demicrats”) don’t think that Rachel Maddow speaks for them. They don’t blindly follow what a TV personality says, or “implies”.
As was said up-thread, “because laws were broken, and knowingly broken, by a person who was sworn to uphold the law, and who bragged about how much upholding of the law he’d do.”
Showing that nobody is above the law is important. A precedent that someone can get away with previous crimes committed by running for president later, and then offering to quit running if those crimes are swept under the rug, is a bad BAD precedent, for reasons too obvious to state.
I want Donald Trump to fight these charges and win.
I want Donald Trump to get elected president in 2024.
But, these may not happen.
Having a frontrunner for a major political party haveing to go through no fewer than three criminal trials simultaneously in the heat of a primary and general election campaign is a recipe for disaster!
And not just for Donald Trump but the entire country.
Donald Trump at some point may decide to put the good of the country ahead of his own political aspirations.
I would then have more respect for him than ever before.
I just hope his opponents would consider the good of the country also and accept the compromise.
It is only a compromise if Garland and Smith are trying to influence the 2024 election results. If their goal is to get as close to equal treatment under the law as they can, the proposed election interference isn’t any kind of benefit or compromise.
I realize that there are many progressives hoping the prosecution of Trump will impact the elections. You can find posts in the SDMB going in that direction. But Garland and Smith are not posting here.
I can’t look into Smith’s heart, or Garland’s heart, to know what is there. But as far as I know, they are, unlike the posters I alluded to, traditional liberals who want equal justice under the law, with the minimum effect on elections consistent with equal justice.
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is a valid, legal defense for these charges, given the large amount of evidence compiled to date?
Having a frontrunner for a major political party haveing to go through no fewer than three criminal trials simultaneously in the heat of a primary and general election campaign is a recipe for disaster!
I would humbly suggest that a good way to avoid this would be if the frontrunner for a major political party did not commit crimes in the first place.
Have you actually read the indictment on the classified document cases? I’m curious, because I honestly can’t see how anyone reading that could think Trump is innocent enough to legitimately win this case. It would require literally everything in the indictment to be outright lies, and if you think that, you’re nuts. The only way he “wins” this case is if the court system is already utterly corrupt.
Having a candidate with a proclivity towards committing crimes is a disaster for the country. Trump could solve this problem by not committing crimes, ooops, too late.
And again, if you think this has any chance at all of actually happening, well…let’s just say you haven’t been paying attention.
And you keep using that word. How is this a “compromise”? Trump gets away with everything, suffers no actual damage, and we’re left with terrible precedents set that certain people will insist are now inviolable. “The good of the country” is not well served by this “compromise”.
You made me snort iced tea out of my nose. What has this man ever done (not said, done) that could make any reasonable person entertain the briefest notion that he’d do anything that was for the benefit of any living being not named Donald J Trump?
Trump will not compromise. The DoJ will not compromise. The other indictments that are coming will come and go to trial without compromise. Few things in this world are predictable, but these are certain.
Trump can, should, will, and must go to trial. Anything less than guilty verdicts after fair trials is the only danger democracy faces.
I’ve not heard anyone of any political persuasion say that a compromise of any kind, let alone the complete exoneration of Trump, which is the effect of your proposal, is possible.