Should the Justice Department indict Trump?

[Sun_Worshiper]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/politics/takeaways-jan-6-committee-meeting/index.html

For months, the committee went back-and-forth over whether it would refer Trump to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

On Monday, the committee didn't equivocate.

The committee referred Trump to DOJ on at least four criminal charges, while saying in its executive summary it had evidence of possible charges of conspiring to injure or impede an officer and seditious conspiracy.

What do you say, should the DOJ indict Trump for his role in January 6th?

[Sun_Worshiper]

I will kick things off by voting "no."

As much as I dislike Trump and as much as I think he is guilty of various crimes against democracy (not to mention decency), an indictment and the subsequent trial would be incredibly divisive and he'd probably be pardoned, perhaps by Biden and certainly by the next Republican president. The country will be better served by letting him live out his days golfing at Mar a Lago and grifting a dwindling pool of die hards.

[Ruralguy]

Ill say that it depends,and I think justice is only likely to pursue the lesser charges.

That doesnt mean it would go to trial or that hed get a jail sentence.

I think Biden would commute any sentence.

My personal opinion is that hes complicit in all of it,but what I think and what I can prove
in court are different animals.

[Parasaurolophus]

Unequivocally yes. Presidents are not kings. They cannot be above the law. They especially cannot be above the law as private citizens.

If prior Presidents had not been treated as above the law, things would never have come to this juncture.

[kaysixteen]

What para said.  Besides, this sort of thing happens in other democracies all the time, when a former leader is corrupt.   Why it should be different here is hard to fathom.

Also, even if Biden keeps Trump out of Leavenworth, he cannot pardon Trump out of state charges in NY or GA, at least in the latter of which are sure to be soon in the offing.

[Sun_Worshiper]

While I agree that Trump did terrible things and it pains me to say that he should not face charges, 40% of the country would see this as being purely political, and that will delegitimize democracy and the American government more generally in their eyes. To do that would be, in my opinion, more harmful to the country then letting Trump walk away. This is especially true now, with Trump's political position having been significantly weakened by the midterms.

[Wahoo Redux]

I will kick things off by voting "no."

As much as I dislike Trump and as much as I think he is guilty of various crimes against democracy (not to mention decency), an indictment and the subsequent trial would be incredibly divisive and he'd probably be pardoned, perhaps by Biden and certainly by the next Republican president. The country will be better served by letting him live out his days golfing at Mar a Lago and grifting a dwindling pool of die hards.

I worry what this trial is going to accomplish.  Nevertheless, I voted "Yes."

We will have some sort of violence, I think.  But that is the price of fighting back a tyrant.  In a way I am proud of America.  We certainly stumbled but in the end the country was strong enough to back down a would-be dictator.  I am not being hyperbolic.

I very seriously doubt that any ex-prez will ever go to prison.  We just need this because no one is above the law and the message needs to be inscribed in stone for future generations.

[Hibush]

40% of the country would see this as being purely political, and that will delegitimize democracy and the American government more generally in their eyes.

That ship has already sailed. Failing to act would delegitimize the government for many of the other 60%.

[Wahoo Redux]

NBC News: The Jan. 6 committee referred Trump to the Justice Department. That was a mistake. (Opinion)

[apl68]

I will kick things off by voting "no."

As much as I dislike Trump and as much as I think he is guilty of various crimes against democracy (not to mention decency), an indictment and the subsequent trial would be incredibly divisive and he'd probably be pardoned, perhaps by Biden and certainly by the next Republican president. The country will be better served by letting him live out his days golfing at Mar a Lago and grifting a dwindling pool of die hards.

Those were my thoughts awhile back.  But now I'm inclined to say that he should face charges, in the interest of trying to finish putting a stake through the heart of his political career.

[marshwiggle]

While I agree that Trump did terrible things and it pains me to say that he should not face charges, 40% of the country would see this as being purely political, and that will delegitimize democracy and the American government more generally in their eyes. To do that would be, in my opinion, more harmful to the country then letting Trump walk away. This is especially true now, with Trump's political position having been significantly weakened by the midterms.

Another factor to consider is that going forward with this keeps getting Trump publicity, which is oxygen for a political campaign. As long as he's in the news, for whatever reason, he still seems "relevant".

I think the DOJ not proceeding would be the best way to get him out of peoples' minds. (I'm reminded of mass muderers, who get way more publicity than their victims. It's a sad irony.)

[Wahoo Redux]

While I agree that Trump did terrible things and it pains me to say that he should not face charges, 40% of the country would see this as being purely political, and that will delegitimize democracy and the American government more generally in their eyes. To do that would be, in my opinion, more harmful to the country then letting Trump walk away. This is especially true now, with Trump's political position having been significantly weakened by the midterms.

Another factor to consider is that going forward with this keeps getting Trump publicity, which is oxygen for a political campaign. As long as he's in the news, for whatever reason, he still seems "relevant".

I think the DOJ not proceeding would be the best way to get him out of peoples' minds. (I'm reminded of mass muderers, who get way more publicity than their victims. It's a sad irony.)

I agree and worry about this effect.

At the same time, I think all these charges are affecting conservatives who actually believe in the ethics and the law.  Unfortunately, DeSantis (who is just as evil and crazy but much, much smarter) is gaining with the party of law and order as Trump becomes increasingly untenable as a candidate.

[Sun_Worshiper]

NBC News: The Jan. 6 committee referred Trump to the Justice Department. That was a mistake. (Opinion)

I have to agree with this oped. The committee did a great job showing Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the election, but to recommend prosecution politicizes what should be an apolitical decision by the DOJ (or at least creates the perception of politicization).

I will kick things off by voting "no."

As much as I dislike Trump and as much as I think he is guilty of various crimes against democracy (not to mention decency), an indictment and the subsequent trial would be incredibly divisive and he'd probably be pardoned, perhaps by Biden and certainly by the next Republican president. The country will be better served by letting him live out his days golfing at Mar a Lago and grifting a dwindling pool of die hards.

Those were my thoughts awhile back.  But now I'm inclined to say that he should face charges, in the interest of trying to finish putting a stake through the heart of his political career.

Are we sure it would have this effect? Trump seems to have declared candidacy in large part to keep prosecutors at bay and so I doubt he would withdrawal if faced with charges. In the meantime, prosecution would galvanize his supporters and perhaps help him win the nomination.

[little bongo]

While I understand (and to some degree, share) the fear and uncertainty with regard to charging Trump and what might happen that could prove advantageous to him, I don't think such fear and uncertainty should guide the decision. Evidence should guide the decision. So my vote is yes.

[clean]

If indicted, would any jury convict?  (given how polarized society is, someone on the jury would be a Trump fan, unable to convict, regardless of the evidence)
If not convicted, then he would be free to use that as vindication and fuel for his next campaign. 

(IF doomed to fail, and given the consequences of failure, then why indict, especially given the precedent and claims of political bias that would result, not to mention the potential calls for impeaching and seeking wrong doings from the next batch of political leaders/candidates). 

IS the cost more than the potential gain?