Trump dropped the case against Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified documents. Biden’s handlers will only drop the case against Trump if they are unable to drop it against Biden. The double standard is clear for anyone to see. Would this author join the chorus of apologists for Biden while pressing for prosecution of Trump with or without jail? Would love to see that article.
On the other hand, what if the current Biden scandal over classified docs is step one in the left’s bid to take Biden out of contention in 2024? Take out two birds with one stone? Trump and Biden with or without jail?
On January 6, Trumps behavior was totally unacceptable. Was it illegal? Before passing judgement, I would like to understand the whole story including FBI implants in the groups that caused violence, not the one sided view presented by Jan 6 committee which had more to do with influencing the midterms than “saving democracy”. As is on display so clearly from the Twitter files, this group has very little interest in “democracy” and are consumed with manipulation of the public.
While I agree with the author’s premise that Presidents should not necessarily go to jail, the current level of corruption in government may require some jail time for the perpetrators to restore trust in our government. At a minimum there should be serious consequences.
Stupidity, incoherence and poor judgement are not criminal offenses. I think we can all agree a majority of Congress would be serving time alongside Trump if that were the standard.
Obviously, the First Amendment protects the right of the people to peacefully assemble and seek a redress of grievances. It is right there in the Bill of Rights. The job of a politician is to assess the risk that such peaceful assembly can go south before encouraging their followers to join the activity. Trump failed his followers in this regard because there was ample warning of bad actors of all stripes that day. For that matter Pelosi had ample warning as well, so she too failed her institution by her lack of preparation.
In Minneapolis, we had 700 buildings destroyed or damaged, a police station burnt to ground and several people killed by violence that erupted during the Floyd protests. Our mayor and governor were directly responsible for encouraging people to join these protests. They were not remotely apologetic that putting peaceful protestors into the mix with violent actors was a bad idea. And no one has discussed charging Mayor Frey and Governor Walz for the destruction of the 3rd Precinct building even though this was foreseeable.
As for the Mar Lago document fracas, I'll see your Melania's high heels and raise you Biden's Corvette. Document retention issues are certainly serious, but I think most people agree that malign intent on what people plan to do with those documents is far more important than some colorable arguments about personal v. Work materials or time periods for memoirs etc.
Excellent points. I'm not a Trump supporter, never was, and even I see that it is patently absurd to suggest that Trump is guilty because the partisan J6 committee says so.
Any kind of presidential interference - including clemency, pre-emptive or otherwise - should be out of the question. Regardless of the bad, and perhaps inadvertently hamstringing precedent it would set (a president who murders, commits war crimes, sells state secrets, etc.?), *trump presents a clear and present danger to American democracy. NO penalty should be taken off the table, least of all by a sitting President, though in Biden's case, it could be remembered as his greatest gaffe.
The author is making the assumption that the special counsel will recommend action, DOJ will accept the recommendations, there will be indictments, the case will go to trial, a jury will convict and the conviction will be upheld upon appeal. Firstly, although the appointment of a special counsel gives the impression that DOJ, executive branch, is taking the recommendations of the Congressional committee, legislative branch, seriously, DOJ is not required to do anything. Secondly, in today's politically charged environment, what are the chances that a jury will reach a unanimous decision to convict?
The problem with this argument is that Trump lost a huge amount of money while serving as President due to lawsuits, reputational damage, etc. I'm not defending Trump and his egomania, but these types of lazy arguments are just painful to read. By contrast, Clinton, Obama, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and many other politicians (including Republicans) did become fabulously wealthy BECAUSE of their *public service*. If you want to honestly understand why Trump remains popular with many, this difference would be a good starting point.
I would not take any promise, agreement or anything like it from Trump. As soon as he violates it he will claim persecution. If it is found that he has committed a crime, he should be tried and sentenced. At that point his sentence could br suspended with the provisions you cite. Should he then break his word, which is extremely likely IMO, he could then be thrown in jail to serve the sentence.
Trump dropped the case against Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified documents. Biden’s handlers will only drop the case against Trump if they are unable to drop it against Biden. The double standard is clear for anyone to see. Would this author join the chorus of apologists for Biden while pressing for prosecution of Trump with or without jail? Would love to see that article.
On the other hand, what if the current Biden scandal over classified docs is step one in the left’s bid to take Biden out of contention in 2024? Take out two birds with one stone? Trump and Biden with or without jail?
On January 6, Trumps behavior was totally unacceptable. Was it illegal? Before passing judgement, I would like to understand the whole story including FBI implants in the groups that caused violence, not the one sided view presented by Jan 6 committee which had more to do with influencing the midterms than “saving democracy”. As is on display so clearly from the Twitter files, this group has very little interest in “democracy” and are consumed with manipulation of the public.
While I agree with the author’s premise that Presidents should not necessarily go to jail, the current level of corruption in government may require some jail time for the perpetrators to restore trust in our government. At a minimum there should be serious consequences.
We will never know the full story on January 6th.
Nope we won't. The only thing we do know is there is a lot more to the story than we have been told.
Hmmm.
Stupidity, incoherence and poor judgement are not criminal offenses. I think we can all agree a majority of Congress would be serving time alongside Trump if that were the standard.
Obviously, the First Amendment protects the right of the people to peacefully assemble and seek a redress of grievances. It is right there in the Bill of Rights. The job of a politician is to assess the risk that such peaceful assembly can go south before encouraging their followers to join the activity. Trump failed his followers in this regard because there was ample warning of bad actors of all stripes that day. For that matter Pelosi had ample warning as well, so she too failed her institution by her lack of preparation.
In Minneapolis, we had 700 buildings destroyed or damaged, a police station burnt to ground and several people killed by violence that erupted during the Floyd protests. Our mayor and governor were directly responsible for encouraging people to join these protests. They were not remotely apologetic that putting peaceful protestors into the mix with violent actors was a bad idea. And no one has discussed charging Mayor Frey and Governor Walz for the destruction of the 3rd Precinct building even though this was foreseeable.
As for the Mar Lago document fracas, I'll see your Melania's high heels and raise you Biden's Corvette. Document retention issues are certainly serious, but I think most people agree that malign intent on what people plan to do with those documents is far more important than some colorable arguments about personal v. Work materials or time periods for memoirs etc.
Excellent points. I'm not a Trump supporter, never was, and even I see that it is patently absurd to suggest that Trump is guilty because the partisan J6 committee says so.
Any kind of presidential interference - including clemency, pre-emptive or otherwise - should be out of the question. Regardless of the bad, and perhaps inadvertently hamstringing precedent it would set (a president who murders, commits war crimes, sells state secrets, etc.?), *trump presents a clear and present danger to American democracy. NO penalty should be taken off the table, least of all by a sitting President, though in Biden's case, it could be remembered as his greatest gaffe.
The author is making the assumption that the special counsel will recommend action, DOJ will accept the recommendations, there will be indictments, the case will go to trial, a jury will convict and the conviction will be upheld upon appeal. Firstly, although the appointment of a special counsel gives the impression that DOJ, executive branch, is taking the recommendations of the Congressional committee, legislative branch, seriously, DOJ is not required to do anything. Secondly, in today's politically charged environment, what are the chances that a jury will reach a unanimous decision to convict?
The problem with this argument is that Trump lost a huge amount of money while serving as President due to lawsuits, reputational damage, etc. I'm not defending Trump and his egomania, but these types of lazy arguments are just painful to read. By contrast, Clinton, Obama, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and many other politicians (including Republicans) did become fabulously wealthy BECAUSE of their *public service*. If you want to honestly understand why Trump remains popular with many, this difference would be a good starting point.
I would not take any promise, agreement or anything like it from Trump. As soon as he violates it he will claim persecution. If it is found that he has committed a crime, he should be tried and sentenced. At that point his sentence could br suspended with the provisions you cite. Should he then break his word, which is extremely likely IMO, he could then be thrown in jail to serve the sentence.