This sick little piece is reflective of the double standard that pervades our legal system, and the Soviet “find me the man, and I will find you the crime” mindset.
I’m surprised you didn’t suggest assassination, it’s a lot quicker and more permanent.
In the echo chamber that is the NY DA's office, an indictment of Trump using a novel legal theory will appear to be clever, but not so much to the rest of the United States. However, as we said in the movie "This Is Spinal Tap", there is a fine line between clever and stupid.
The justification for indicting an ex-President - whatever you may think of him - must be clear to the American people. Further, the trauma to the American people of putting an ex-President on trial must be worth the effort. Let the people decide through our system of primaries, however flawed, and then, if necessary, the general election.
For different reasons, I agree with the author that it is a grave error to pursue a Trump indictment over the Stormy Daniel case.
A very important question is why are they doing it? Trump’s opponents have put this country through hell trying to take him down. For example, the false Russia collusion narrative caused incalculable damage to our country, the presidency and potentially relations with Russia. Why was it pursued?
As bad as the violence of Jan 6 was, why was it turned into a one sided made for TV production? Why was nothing done (by either side) to stop it when the FBI had infiltrated some of the groups in advance of the rally and surely knew there was the potential for violence?
Why was Trump’s home raided so spectacularly before the midterms?
All of these actions appear to have a common goal - to keep Trump front and center in the news cycles. Plus it baits Trump whose out of control ego renders him unable to shut up. When he responds - more sound bites, more people who passionately hate him, more people who feel compelled to vote “against” Trump and fail to recognize what they are voting “for”.
It’s a vicious cycle we have witnessed continuously since 2015. It’s also been a massively successful strategy to swing independent voters away from anyone or anything Trump supports. Why stop now?
Hopefully for the good of our country, they do stop. IMO the best way to get rid of Trump is to ignore him. Trump has become the wrong kind of wrecking ball and is caught in a dance with his opponents that has and will continue to have serious negative results not the least of which is the promotion of more progressivism. Losing elections has big consequences.
Plus if the left does not manage this as expertly as other Trump attacks ( ie maximum news coverage without actual results so that the cycle can be repeated continuously) they will create a dangerous precedent. Biden’s corruption might actually be fully exposed and acted upon.
"A very important question is why are they doing it?"
To me, anyway, it's only important to ask that if the subject of the charges would not have been charged had he been an ordinary person, and are the charges novel in some way (using an existing law in a new way). If the charges are simply ones that we'd have made against another person who did it, I don't really care why it's being done. To Mr. Linker's piece, it appears that these charges may fit at least one of those criteria: novel use of the law (I'm no legal scholar or lawyer, so it's hard for me to judge with the facts I'm aware of).
"As bad as the violence of Jan 6 was, why was it turned into a one sided made for TV production?"
I don't much think the violence of January 6 was all that important. Yes, it was horrible that a group of Americans effectively stormed the Capitol, scaring the shit out of Congress, but far too much focus was placed on that event, and far too little placed on the rest of Trump's overall attempt to stay in power despite losing the election.
As for why the hearings were a one-sided affair, perhaps ask the Republicans who walked out of it rather than be associated with it. Why they left it, rather than help to shape an investigation and explication of the subversion of an election for the nation's highest office. Notice they made no effort to convene their own review of the facts. They didn't challenge the facts presented by the committee. They merely recognized that their voters wouldn't stomach them being involved with criticism of Donald Trump, and they are cowards (like most of us, to be fair -- if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would behave no better).
Your point regarding the charges is valid. Equal application of the law is essential to a functioning democracy. Is this equal? Questionable but the facts will tell the story if we ever get them all. "Why" is just as important however when the charges are viewed in the context of the last 6 years. It seems to be a clear pattern, one we should all pay attention to.
I agree far too much focus was placed on the violence. It was a good diversion. Trump was lambasted in the hearings so I don't think it was a diversion to hide his behavior as suggested. Examining what they did not discuss (ie preparedness, FBI, cops opening doors, etc etc) yields some clues, doesn't it?
Trump's behavior after the election and his legal efforts were pathetic. Yet there were efforts in 2020 that impacted the election, serious things. The hearing was an effective narrative to deflect from them. The "election denier" tag shutdown public discourse even better than the "racist" and "transphobe" tag.
If recall, the Republicans put forth participants to serve on the committee. They were rejected by the Dems. It was clear from that move it was going to be a partisan hack job, not a search for the truth. And it worked. The Dems benefitted from the optics of those hearings in midterms, swinging independents away from anything Trump. Repubs did challenge much of what was done in the hearings but it did not reach many news outlets. I think they plan on holding their own hearings now but am not certain of that. IMO that's too little too late.
One thing we completely agree on is how badly they all are. Spare us politicians
I agree with the first and last parts of this essay, but not the middle part.
The New York case is trivial and unrelated to Trump's frontal assault on democracy. It also requires too much lawcraft just to bring charges. It apparently started from a wish to indict a certain public figure and then proceeded to the getting up of a designer case.
The Georgia case is related to the assault on democracy. It's also straightforward. It's a better justified means of seeing justice served.
However, federal charges should not be eschewed out of fear that Trump will exploit them successfully. The question of principle -- that you don't mess with the US Constitution -- is enough, but it's not all. As other essayists and analysts have argued, Trump may get his rump base fired up, but there's no upside for him in the form of broadened appeal. If we want Trump to go down to a resounding political defeat, whether in prison or at large, we should let him go down in mid-tantrum.
David Linker presents arguments for not charging Donald Trump with committing federal and state crimes. To do so, would in his view be so divisive as to be dismissed out of hand.
To charge him in New York for election law violations by buying the silence of Stormy Daniels during his election campaign, he finds petty and unjustified.
To charge him in Georgia for a sustained attempt to “steal victory from the jaws of his defeat” by soliciting Georgia election officials to manufacture and discover votes giving him victory, he believes is the best case of the three. Still, that option should not be exercised.
But charging him in Georgia, would be a grievous category mistake. Trump’s crimes are political They are best punished by serial defeats at the polls.
What Mr. Linker does not discuss are the destructive and fully recognized consequences of not charging him.
The author concedes that “no person is above the law” . He then places Trump in a special category of ex-Presidents who should not be charged for alleged crimes because of their special place in American politics. Well, President Andrew Johnson refused to charge rebel leaders of the Confederacy. How did that work out?
President Ford pardoned Nixon for all known and unknown crimes before he might be charged. That surely sent a message to future high ranking politicians of both parties.
One is justified in concluding that placing ex-president in a special political category that Mr Linker proposes, places them , as a practical matter, above the reach of statute law which is an immunity no person in the United States should have.
This sick little piece is reflective of the double standard that pervades our legal system, and the Soviet “find me the man, and I will find you the crime” mindset.
I’m surprised you didn’t suggest assassination, it’s a lot quicker and more permanent.
They don’t want permanent. Trump has becomes the left’s greatest tool to stay in power.
In the echo chamber that is the NY DA's office, an indictment of Trump using a novel legal theory will appear to be clever, but not so much to the rest of the United States. However, as we said in the movie "This Is Spinal Tap", there is a fine line between clever and stupid.
The justification for indicting an ex-President - whatever you may think of him - must be clear to the American people. Further, the trauma to the American people of putting an ex-President on trial must be worth the effort. Let the people decide through our system of primaries, however flawed, and then, if necessary, the general election.
"As was said" not "as we said", my mistake.
For different reasons, I agree with the author that it is a grave error to pursue a Trump indictment over the Stormy Daniel case.
A very important question is why are they doing it? Trump’s opponents have put this country through hell trying to take him down. For example, the false Russia collusion narrative caused incalculable damage to our country, the presidency and potentially relations with Russia. Why was it pursued?
As bad as the violence of Jan 6 was, why was it turned into a one sided made for TV production? Why was nothing done (by either side) to stop it when the FBI had infiltrated some of the groups in advance of the rally and surely knew there was the potential for violence?
Why was Trump’s home raided so spectacularly before the midterms?
All of these actions appear to have a common goal - to keep Trump front and center in the news cycles. Plus it baits Trump whose out of control ego renders him unable to shut up. When he responds - more sound bites, more people who passionately hate him, more people who feel compelled to vote “against” Trump and fail to recognize what they are voting “for”.
It’s a vicious cycle we have witnessed continuously since 2015. It’s also been a massively successful strategy to swing independent voters away from anyone or anything Trump supports. Why stop now?
Hopefully for the good of our country, they do stop. IMO the best way to get rid of Trump is to ignore him. Trump has become the wrong kind of wrecking ball and is caught in a dance with his opponents that has and will continue to have serious negative results not the least of which is the promotion of more progressivism. Losing elections has big consequences.
Plus if the left does not manage this as expertly as other Trump attacks ( ie maximum news coverage without actual results so that the cycle can be repeated continuously) they will create a dangerous precedent. Biden’s corruption might actually be fully exposed and acted upon.
"A very important question is why are they doing it?"
To me, anyway, it's only important to ask that if the subject of the charges would not have been charged had he been an ordinary person, and are the charges novel in some way (using an existing law in a new way). If the charges are simply ones that we'd have made against another person who did it, I don't really care why it's being done. To Mr. Linker's piece, it appears that these charges may fit at least one of those criteria: novel use of the law (I'm no legal scholar or lawyer, so it's hard for me to judge with the facts I'm aware of).
"As bad as the violence of Jan 6 was, why was it turned into a one sided made for TV production?"
I don't much think the violence of January 6 was all that important. Yes, it was horrible that a group of Americans effectively stormed the Capitol, scaring the shit out of Congress, but far too much focus was placed on that event, and far too little placed on the rest of Trump's overall attempt to stay in power despite losing the election.
As for why the hearings were a one-sided affair, perhaps ask the Republicans who walked out of it rather than be associated with it. Why they left it, rather than help to shape an investigation and explication of the subversion of an election for the nation's highest office. Notice they made no effort to convene their own review of the facts. They didn't challenge the facts presented by the committee. They merely recognized that their voters wouldn't stomach them being involved with criticism of Donald Trump, and they are cowards (like most of us, to be fair -- if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would behave no better).
Your point regarding the charges is valid. Equal application of the law is essential to a functioning democracy. Is this equal? Questionable but the facts will tell the story if we ever get them all. "Why" is just as important however when the charges are viewed in the context of the last 6 years. It seems to be a clear pattern, one we should all pay attention to.
I agree far too much focus was placed on the violence. It was a good diversion. Trump was lambasted in the hearings so I don't think it was a diversion to hide his behavior as suggested. Examining what they did not discuss (ie preparedness, FBI, cops opening doors, etc etc) yields some clues, doesn't it?
Trump's behavior after the election and his legal efforts were pathetic. Yet there were efforts in 2020 that impacted the election, serious things. The hearing was an effective narrative to deflect from them. The "election denier" tag shutdown public discourse even better than the "racist" and "transphobe" tag.
If recall, the Republicans put forth participants to serve on the committee. They were rejected by the Dems. It was clear from that move it was going to be a partisan hack job, not a search for the truth. And it worked. The Dems benefitted from the optics of those hearings in midterms, swinging independents away from anything Trump. Repubs did challenge much of what was done in the hearings but it did not reach many news outlets. I think they plan on holding their own hearings now but am not certain of that. IMO that's too little too late.
One thing we completely agree on is how badly they all are. Spare us politicians
I agree with the first and last parts of this essay, but not the middle part.
The New York case is trivial and unrelated to Trump's frontal assault on democracy. It also requires too much lawcraft just to bring charges. It apparently started from a wish to indict a certain public figure and then proceeded to the getting up of a designer case.
The Georgia case is related to the assault on democracy. It's also straightforward. It's a better justified means of seeing justice served.
However, federal charges should not be eschewed out of fear that Trump will exploit them successfully. The question of principle -- that you don't mess with the US Constitution -- is enough, but it's not all. As other essayists and analysts have argued, Trump may get his rump base fired up, but there's no upside for him in the form of broadened appeal. If we want Trump to go down to a resounding political defeat, whether in prison or at large, we should let him go down in mid-tantrum.
David Linker presents arguments for not charging Donald Trump with committing federal and state crimes. To do so, would in his view be so divisive as to be dismissed out of hand.
To charge him in New York for election law violations by buying the silence of Stormy Daniels during his election campaign, he finds petty and unjustified.
To charge him in Georgia for a sustained attempt to “steal victory from the jaws of his defeat” by soliciting Georgia election officials to manufacture and discover votes giving him victory, he believes is the best case of the three. Still, that option should not be exercised.
But charging him in Georgia, would be a grievous category mistake. Trump’s crimes are political They are best punished by serial defeats at the polls.
What Mr. Linker does not discuss are the destructive and fully recognized consequences of not charging him.
The author concedes that “no person is above the law” . He then places Trump in a special category of ex-Presidents who should not be charged for alleged crimes because of their special place in American politics. Well, President Andrew Johnson refused to charge rebel leaders of the Confederacy. How did that work out?
President Ford pardoned Nixon for all known and unknown crimes before he might be charged. That surely sent a message to future high ranking politicians of both parties.
One is justified in concluding that placing ex-president in a special political category that Mr Linker proposes, places them , as a practical matter, above the reach of statute law which is an immunity no person in the United States should have.