Does Merrick Garland belong to the Club? Is he afraid that in the annals of history it will look bad if he is the first to bring charges against an ex-President and then loses? I suspect so but I also think there will NEVER be a risk-free case that could be brought against Trump because of the burdens of proving intent and securing un…
Does Merrick Garland belong to the Club? Is he afraid that in the annals of history it will look bad if he is the first to bring charges against an ex-President and then loses? I suspect so but I also think there will NEVER be a risk-free case that could be brought against Trump because of the burdens of proving intent and securing unanimity in a jury. I believe that in the eye of history the failure to at least try (pun intended) will be seen as close to a crime!
Bill You raise a core question. I don’t recall that any ex-president has ever been tried in a criminal court of law. Clearly the House 1/6 Committee is signaling to Attorney General Garland that they are gathering ‘smoking pistol’ evidence against Trump and his Trump Pissers.
Already the word ‘sedition’ has been used in some of DOJ 1/6 indictments. During the House 1/6 Committee’s public hearings, some of the seditionists will be be on center stage. The DOJ may choose to indict the low-hanging fruits. As for the big enchilada, the issue of indicting an ex-president who had 74 million votes in the 2020 could have profound political repercussions with such crazies as the Proud Boys and the Oath Takers.
Personally, I consider Trump guilty of sedition and, with a broad interpretation of the Constitution, treason. At a minimum, he could be an unnamed indictee in the prosecution of others.
Trump is now the heaviest ex-president in American history (William Howard Taft lost 50 pounds before being seated as Chief Justice). With all the prospective trials that are lurking around Tubby Trump (the IRS has a pending $100+ million matter with Trump since 2010 and lots more peccadillos to explore subsequently), perhaps Trump will fall of his own weight.
I don't know how satisfying "unnamed indictee" would be. From what you're saying about Tubby, wouldn't that just be another case of letting the little guys take the fall?
Agreed and that's why I think a trial is needed even if there's a mistrial With the passage of time the vast majority of Americans concluded that OJ did it even though he was acquitted--but without a trial it might not have been so clear
Does Merrick Garland belong to the Club? Is he afraid that in the annals of history it will look bad if he is the first to bring charges against an ex-President and then loses? I suspect so but I also think there will NEVER be a risk-free case that could be brought against Trump because of the burdens of proving intent and securing unanimity in a jury. I believe that in the eye of history the failure to at least try (pun intended) will be seen as close to a crime!
Bill You raise a core question. I don’t recall that any ex-president has ever been tried in a criminal court of law. Clearly the House 1/6 Committee is signaling to Attorney General Garland that they are gathering ‘smoking pistol’ evidence against Trump and his Trump Pissers.
Already the word ‘sedition’ has been used in some of DOJ 1/6 indictments. During the House 1/6 Committee’s public hearings, some of the seditionists will be be on center stage. The DOJ may choose to indict the low-hanging fruits. As for the big enchilada, the issue of indicting an ex-president who had 74 million votes in the 2020 could have profound political repercussions with such crazies as the Proud Boys and the Oath Takers.
Personally, I consider Trump guilty of sedition and, with a broad interpretation of the Constitution, treason. At a minimum, he could be an unnamed indictee in the prosecution of others.
Trump is now the heaviest ex-president in American history (William Howard Taft lost 50 pounds before being seated as Chief Justice). With all the prospective trials that are lurking around Tubby Trump (the IRS has a pending $100+ million matter with Trump since 2010 and lots more peccadillos to explore subsequently), perhaps Trump will fall of his own weight.
I don't know how satisfying "unnamed indictee" would be. From what you're saying about Tubby, wouldn't that just be another case of letting the little guys take the fall?
Perhaps all this hand wringing about Trump is one of the fundamental limitions of "freedom" and "due process"???
I mean, does anyone question that Trump tried to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the United States on live TV and Twitter??
No. Everyone knows that he did precisely that, but, here we are, wringing our hands about having a case against him.
Honestly, what a mess.
Agreed and that's why I think a trial is needed even if there's a mistrial With the passage of time the vast majority of Americans concluded that OJ did it even though he was acquitted--but without a trial it might not have been so clear