Trump would hate it, that’s for sure. Sitting down and shutting up while witness after witness says bad things about him is not a very Trump thing to do.
Besides, his presence lends a legitimacy to the proceedings that he’d like to avoid.
Why? Voters are free to vote for a convicted felon if they want to. Justice and, yes, Democracy, cannot be held subservient to someone’s day job.
20 years in prison might make others of his ilk think twice. But it’s true, Trumps destruction has been done. Now we need to fix his damage.
The trial for the former president’s alleged subversion of democracy being subservient to the time demands of his political campaign is like a doctor on trial for multiple malpractice murder charges saying that he doesn’t have time for the trial because he has a practice to run…
I’d really rather find out of the end of the story (verdict) before voting, or before I schedule surgery.
Lengthy punishment doesn’t substantially deter. Speedy and certain punishment can. (See last three pages here).
What might really deter others is if Trump experienced a big immediate drop in the polls after conviction or imprisonment.
The idea that you can punish your way to good government seems to me unlikely, but we may have a test of it.
That’s a shame.
Maybe this is impossible, but I hope that if Trump is convicted, appeals courts will put this on an emergency docket. Voters should know before they vote what the final decision might be. It would be bad for democracy if Trump is convicted shortly before the election, and then Biden wins, and, shortly after, the conviction is vacated. The chances of Biden being indicted by an overzealous red state prosecutor would increase, and, I predict, perceptions of unfairness would contribute to a Republican wave election in 2026.
And there’s always the possibility that, after emergency docket treatment, Trump would lose the election because he had exhausted appeals before election day.
I feel dirty writing the last two sentences, since they imply that partisan considerations should be controlling here. It’s more justifiable is to balance democracy and justice no matter who is under indictment.
What compromise to democracy do you feel is happening here?
Biden hasn’t committed any crimes that even an overzealous prosecutor would file.
Which is why Trump should be tried ASAP.
Indeed.
If the appeal is put on a rocket/emergency docket, in an attempt to let voters know the final result before the election, that rushing is a compromise of justice with democracy.
Same is true if a prosecutor or judge tries to avoid trying a candidate between Labor Day and Election Day.
Consider:
Trump allies respond to Georgia charges with fury, conspiracy and threats to prosecute Biden
Yes. Crazed zealots like MTG are fucking around right now with threats. They’re going to find out where they get with threats like these.
If anyone with authority backs off of justice out of fear of MTG’s threats, what she’ll find out is threats work.
I’m not convinced she should learn that lesson.
I’d still like a cite for this.
Even when they were in charge, they never went through with charging Hilary because they knew that she hadn’t actually committed the crimes they accused her of. The same is true regarding President Biden.
If I’m on trial for murder, and my lawyer proves I had no motive or even the vaguest possibility that I could in any way have done it but the jury convicts me anyway-what then? With enough MAGA crazies in enough places, they could convict Biden.
Will it happen? Probably not and perhaps I’m alarmist, but facts don’t matter for a lot of the hardcore GOP. With a President Trump it would be more possible.
Sure, but the point is not to assert that this impossible. The point is that we should not compromise justice today because we are intimidated by threats of this happening.
No, you’re right. We shouldn’t be frightened by boogeymen or nothing gets done.
I still think I read this in my last 50 years of newspaper reading, but, googling, cannot find a single example. I think it is true but others reasonably will not.
Now that it is too late to edit, I just found a possible, single example of what I said, in my last post, could not be found – a judge balancing justice with democracy – although it is in Virginia, not Georgia:
Judge agrees to delay trial of indicted former Prince William elections chief until January 2024
The most important word there is “former”: I don’t think White is running for re-election. And the reason why the trial will be delayed is because a key witness in the trial is an elections worker who won’t be available from September-November:
So while this is technically “balancing justice with democracy”, it’s not to avoid interference with a candidate’s campaign: it’s to avoid interference with accurately counting the votes during an election. It’s almost the exact opposite of Trump’s case.