Should the Justice Department indict Trump?

[ciao_yall]

If we don't indict because we are afraid of what the Trumpies might do, then we may as well admit they won.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

It is the level of the corruption and violence which is unprecedented and ongoing. 

The Republicans were willing to impeach Nixon for far, far less and Nixon willingly resigned.

[Ruralguy]

The 1970s Republicans were not cult members bowing to Dear Leader.

[cathwen]

If we don't indict because we are afraid of what the Trumpies might do, then we may as well admit they won.

I agree entirely.  We cannot let fear of his supporters and what they might or might not do take the justice system hostage.

[clean]

Why attack him and give rise to a martyr syndrome?
Let the cause die in silence by ignoring it.

He did it.  Can you PROVE he did it to a jury that includes his supporters?

IF you do not convict, then he has a ton more press and can further bring news to his cause, and you make HIM the victim.   

[kaysixteen]

We're missing the key point here, namely, that we need to do whatever it takes, within the law, to prevent this person from ever disgracing the presidency again.

Why exactly is it that other democracies have shown the ability to prosecute corrupt ex-leaders?  BTW, take Britain and Canada, for instance-- are any PMs in either country's history known for having committed obviously illegal acts in office?

[Parasaurolophus]

Why attack him and give rise to a martyr syndrome?
Let the cause die in silence by ignoring it.

He did it.  Can you PROVE he did it to a jury that includes his supporters?

IF you do not convict, then he has a ton more press and can further bring news to his cause, and you make HIM the victim.   

They've already got a martyr complex going strong. That's why they believe the election was stolen.

As I see it, not pursuing him for his myriad crimes is tantamount to conceding that they were not, in fact, crimes. In addition to then allowing him and his cultists to scream victory and dismiss the allegations entirely, it also sets a precedent for future presidents. When President Hunter Biden/Hillary Clinton does whatever and argues they are being discriminated against by the DOJ, they'll be entirely right to say so. And if Trump regains the presidency, well, that means he can do just as much again with impunity.

Nor is this unique to Trump. At the very least, GWB and his cronies should have faced justice, too (though of course the same is true for many of their predecessors, too). But they didn't, and now it's really hard to roll the tape back on torture (as Obama discovered), pre-emptive war (the Iran sabres will start to rattle again very soon), an out-of-control national security state, etc.

[jimbogumbo]

100% yes.

[dismalist]

The committee, composed exclusively of anti-trumpers, is out of bounds. It is supposed to propose to Congress, not to the DoJ. But if it were to, it would be proposing a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional. The committee is sending documents to the DoJ. It's pure performance art.

But no worries: There's a Special Counsel investigating Trump, and he decides whether to prosecute or not.

[Wahoo Redux]

They've already got a martyr complex going strong.

Sorry Big-D, but those of us who have followed the Trumpee drama since the beginning have become very, very dubious about wailing conservatives who constantly believe in some sort of Constitutional violation.

I suspect Congresspeople know the laws.

[nebo113]

Perhaps the real question is not "should" he be indicted, but on what charges.  While I think he was deeply involved in orchestrating the coup, it's not an ,easy charge and difficult to prove legally.  I think Jack Smith will advise Garland to charge on the secret documents/ ignoring subpoenas, and Garland will bring those charges.

[marshwiggle]

Question for those in favour of charges going forward:

How (and to what degree) was Trump seriously harmed by the failed impeachment process? Any failed criminal proceeding will probably have a similar effect.

(Even a "conviction" that results in little or no jail time, or gets a presidential pardon, is likely to have a similar effect.)

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm not concerned with harming him, but rather with setting the right precedents for future presidents (himself included).

I would be very upset with a pardoned conviction. Presidents must be subjects of the law. This is particularly important while in office, but especially true when they are private citizens. Equality before the law and the impartiality of the law are key pillars of a functioning democracy.

[ciao_yall]

Question for those in favour of charges going forward:

How (and to what degree) was Trump seriously harmed by the failed impeachment process?

The GOP was harmed by driving them into greater and fiercer divisions, which showed in the 2022 midterms and is continuing to spiral today.

Any failed criminal proceeding will probably have a similar effect. (Even a "conviction" that results in little or no jail time, or gets a presidential pardon, is likely to have a similar effect.)

The truth will continue to be exposed. The GOP will continue to have to wrestle with these facts in primaries and general elections.

So far, not working out so well for them.

[nebo113]

Question for those in favour of charges going forward:

How (and to what degree) was Trump seriously harmed by the failed impeachment process? Any failed criminal proceeding will probably have a similar effect.

(Even a "conviction" that results in little or no jail time, or gets a presidential pardon, is likely to have a similar effect.)

I see your point.  Indicting him for anything will generate unrest and threats from his supporters, and those assholes who just want an opportunity to shoot something.  Being impeached didn't hurt him, nor did it hurt Clinton; the threat of impeachment coupled with honorable Senators telling him to go pushed out "I am not a crook."  If Garland indicts, I think the evidence will be strong enough to get a conviction, especially if it relates to the documents at Mar a Lago.  And I now surmise that the IRS will be scrutinizing his returns for tax fraud/evasion.  Mitch McConnell is a bellwether of public opinion, and he's pretty much saying Dumpf is toast.....