Is Indicting Trump A Good Idea?

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete1111]

Former AG Bill Barr on Face the Nation suggested a former president should not serve prison time.  

He also compared Trump's behavior to a 5 year old boy, and that the United States should not serve as a therapy session for Trump's outrageous behavior.

That said, he also confirmed Trump's legal defense is baseless, that he is guilty.

As far as J6, Barr was not as forthcoming other than to reconfirm the idea that VP Pence unilaterally reversing the election result makes no sense in the same way Trump's document case defense makes no sense.

Trump tends to latch onto the best sounding ideas for himself, no matter how bad, just like his MAGA and QAnon adherents latch onto nutty ideas they find on the Internet. 

That's frightening, especially considering a candidate with a 5-year-old mentality is running for the GOP nomination.

While one might claim indicting Trump is akin to a therapy session for TFG, I would circle back to the OP, and respond that no matter how Bill Barr frames Trump's crimes, indicting TFG is necessary and important for our democracy and important for our allies to see that the US has not lost all of its marbles.

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 6/18/2023 at 12:49 PM, Pete1111 said:

Former AG Bill Barr on Face the Nation suggested a former president should not serve prison time.  

He also compared Trump's behavior to a 5 year old boy, and that the United States should not serve as a therapy session for Trump's outrageous behavior.

That said, he also confirmed Trump's legal defense is baseless, that he is guilty.

As far as J6, Barr was not as forthcoming other than to reconfirm the idea that VP Pence unilaterally reversing the election result makes no sense in the same way Trump's document case defense makes no sense.

Trump tends to latch onto the best sounding ideas for himself, no matter how bad, just like his MAGA and QAnon adherents latch onto nutty ideas they find on the Internet. 

That's frightening, especially considering a candidate with a 5-year-old mentality is running for the GOP nomination.

While one might claim indicting Trump is akin to a therapy session for TFG, I would circle back to the OP, and respond that no matter how Bill Barr frames Trump's crimes, indicting TFG is necessary and important for our democracy and important for our allies to see that the US has not lost all of its marbles.

 

Barr has been surprisingly refreshing to listen to.   For many liberals he is still kind of a fascist himself.  But what is helpful about him right now is he is bending over backwards to say there is something called "the law".   And it is not the same as politics or partisanship.  And this idea that the law means one thing for Republicans, and another thing for Democrats - which is what Republicans are having a huge pity party about - is just not the truth.  Period.  The law is the law.  And Trump's former AG knows something about the law.  Period.

That probably explains Barr being precise in saying that whatever would have to be proved in court on J6 is not the same as what has to be proved about Trump obstructing justice with the military and nuclear documents. 

I'm not a lawyer.  But I suspect Barr is on target in arguing that it would be hard to prove in court that Trump wanted a violent riot.  Or he specifically wanted people to beat the shit out of cops.  Or he specifically wanted them to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi.  Or even that he specifically wanted some kind of revolution.  To use Barr's words, as much as I view lying about losing an election and trying to subvert democracy as the bigger crime, it is probably legally correct that none of what Trump did on J6 makes him "toast,"  legally.  Whereas on obstructing justice by keeping military and nuclear documents, Trump is "toast," as Barr said.  A lawyer like him would probably know.

In @Lucky's defense, the indictment he was referring to is Bragg's case.  One can certainly argue that, in retrospect, all it did was draw support to Trump and help him raise money.  Kudos to Paul Ryan and John Bolton, two more lifelong conservatives who are loudmouths about this.  Ryan on CBS just referred to the Bragg case as "petty."  But he made a big point about how Trump fucking with the government to treat military and nuclear secrets as his own personal records is just wrong.  And illegal.  Bolton pointed out that the DOJ or anyone should put pressure on NYC and Bragg to let the other indictment (or maybe indictments?) go first, since they take precedence.

My theory, which Ryan and Bolton and Barr are all reinforcing, is that each indictment is like a nail in the coffin.  While the J6 and Georgia "find me 11,780 votes" indictments may not be as clean legally, they sure seem to be like more horrific offenses, and huge nails, to me.  And to most Independents, according to I think every poll.   I'll add RCP's AB Stoddard as another right of center thinker who says very clearly, "Enough!  This man is a fucking spoiled brat.  We should not feel sorry for him.  How long are we going to tolerate this total bullshit?  It's abusive.  I hate it."  She almost says it that bluntly.

I hope Republicans get their way regarding the double standard with Hillary Clinton. 

There's three very important things we know about Hillary, if we want to be fair and avoid a double standard. 

First, the bumper sticker of Election Year 2016 was, "Lock Her Up!"  Taken literally, it is okay for me, as a Democrat, to follow that standard and argue Trump is guilty before proven innocent.  So he should be locked up immediately. 

Second, Clinton was not indicted.  But her emails were talked about all year in 2016.  Let's just assume for purposes of being fair that Clinton's emails and obstruction were the same as Trump's legally - which they are not, of course.  The point is, assuming it's the same thing, we of course need to talk every fucking day about how Trump  is now a total piece of shit - a murderous traitor and scumbag - that needs to be locked up.  Now!  Just like Hillary was in 2016.  Fair is fair. 

Third, few people realize this, but Hillary lost the election in 2016.  (She actually won the popular vote by the millions.  But most Democrats - unlike most Republicans - respect The Constitution.) So if the fair and uniform standard is that in the final week before the 2016 election the FBI was biting huge pieces of Hillary's ass off, that is what they should do to Trump.  Rip his fat ass apart.  And be precise.  Who care's about 2023?  If we are being fair, the FBI needs to make sure it drives a seriously fucking sharp machete straight up Lock Him Up Don's law breaking ass IN THE WEEK BEFORE PEOPLE VOTE IN 2024.   Neither Comey, nor the FBI, said their intent was to make sure Hillary lost in 2016.  But she did lose.  And Hillary and I both agree that the machete they drove up her ass IN THE WEEK BEFORE PEOPLE VOTED IN 2016 was probably the fatal nail in her coffin.  So, if we are being fair, we need to save the best for last.  We need to make horrific charges against Trump.  Hopefully not even based in fact, like Comey's October surprise in 2016. Fair is fair.

Republicans who whine about double standards perhaps don't know that Hillary lost in 2016, thanks to the FBI.  Or maybe that is the double standard.  Perhaps what they really mean is that it's okay that what Hillary did maybe cost her the Presidency in 2016.  But in 2024, we want Trump to be above the law, unlike Hillary.  I'll leave it to conservatives like Bill Barr and Paul Ryan and John Bolton to help the MAGA True Patriots to figure that shit out. 😯  Good luck, guys.

Speaking of Hillary, I think the real danger here is that, in the weird world of politics, this does the opposite of what it did in 2016.  In 2016 all the allegations involving national security and breaking laws definitely hurt Hillary.  The polls showed it, and she lost the election.  If there is something similar, it is what Paul Ryan just argued.  Republicans would have won the Senate and more House seats but for Trump in 2022.  He argued that Trump is the one candidate who will hand the election, and the Senate, to Biden in 2024.  Because these are all nails in his coffin.  But he also noted that politics in never linear.  So in some weird way, the danger is that a majority of Americans actually feel sorry for Trump.  Because he is right.  He is simply be persecuted. And the majority of fair-minded Americans know it.

The polls, and the 2020 and 2022 election results, suggest the exact opposite.  Barr is saying loud and clear Trump broke the law.  And, thus, is "toast."  But who knows?  Trump and MAGA are sure hoping that people feel sorry for our poor little rich juvenile delinquent.  Stranger things have happened.

I'll be very broken record about this.  In the end, I think it's the economy, stupid.  Or, a bit more precisely, it's the recession, stupid.  As of yesterday one bullish stock talking head said we are on the verge of an expansion.  And the S & P will end 2023 at 4800.  Meaning by Election Day 2024 we will be well into all time highs.  Mike Wilson, the Bear In Chief at Morgan Stanley, says the S & P ends 2023 at 3900.  Which one is correct, and the implications on the economy and inflation, probably matters more to Biden than Trump's indictments.  Happily, most talking heads - bull or bear - premise their arguments on the idea that by next Fall inflation will be back to "normal."  Wilson thinks that will hurt corporate earnings, and the S & P.  Because the free ride for big corporations being able to crank up profits to record levels based on COVID is over.  Not his exacts words.  But if he's right, that may actually help Biden.

[JKane]

Meanwhile, in Hollywood:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

[Moses]

Prodems are so busy in fight with Trump what they don't see what's going on in own camp:

[forky123]

Therese Coffey is right wing so certainly not in my camp and she isn't the health minister. 

[Moses]

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

she isn't the health minister

Since October 25 2022, yes

[stevenkesslar]

21 hours ago, Moses said:

Prodems are so busy in fight with Trump what they don't see what's going on in own camp:

Not sure I get the point?

The problem with Rachel Levine is .....?

She is transgender.  She has defended transgender kids and their families. That's probably a bridge too far for many Republicans.  But the problem that my "own camp" should have is?

[Moses]

6 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

The problem

Not a "problems" - "prodems" = voters for Demparty.

And in general my question is: why Prodems are fighting with Trump instead of advertising of own candidate? Nothing to say about candidates from Dems?

[forky123]

You don't win elections in the US (or most western countries) in the 21st century by only promoting your own candidates. Also, if your opponent is a serial sex offender, a sociopath and believes TS documents are there to impress chicks then of course you attack him. Elections aren't about impressing your own voters, they are about winning over those in the middle and those who haven't made up their minds yet. 

[Moses]

55 minutes ago, forky123 said:

Elections aren't about impressing your own voters, they are about winning over those in the middle and those who haven't made up their minds yet. 

Great. So, why you don't come to the "middle" and say: "Look, we have smart, successful, energetical, active, healthy, and popular candidate with a lot of ideas for people on all social levels. Vote for him!" ???

Oh, right, you have Biden. 

So your tactic is to make Trump even less attractive than Biden is, because you can't say about Biden "smart, successful, energetical, active, healthy, and popular" right?

[forky123]

I don't have Biden at all. I'm not a Democrat. Also, I'm in the middle (fiscally slightly right of centre, socially slightly left of centre). The reason politicians don't do that is it takes 5 minutes of negative attention to destroy a year long campaign of telling people how good you are. It shouldn't be that way but it is. 

My tactic isn't to make Trump into anything. He does that entirely on his own. 

How come you fluff for Trump so hard? 

[Latbear4blk]

4 hours ago, Moses said:

Not a "problems" - "prodems" = voters for Demparty.

And in general my question is: why Prodems are fighting with Trump instead of advertising of own candidate? Nothing to say about candidates from Dems?

Nothing to say about your transphobia? Or what is your problem with her being the Assistant Secretary of Health?

[Moses]

1 hour ago, Latbear4blk said:

Nothing to say about your transphobia? Or what is your problem with her being the Assistant Secretary of Health?

All 4 are transsexuals? Or what? Where you found "transphobia"?

I see 4 unhealthy looking ministers of Health. And my idea is" How they may care about health of other people, if they even can't care about own health"?

[alvnv]

6 hours ago, Moses said:

All 4 are transsexuals? Or what? Where you found "transphobia"?

I see 4 unhealthy looking ministers of Health. And my idea is" How they may care about health of other people, if they even can't care about own health"?

At least they’re human, unlike that troll that’s in charge of Russia 

[stevenkesslar]

On 6/29/2023 at 4:00 AM, stevenkesslar said:

Not sure I get the point?

The problem with Rachel Levine is .....?

 

On 6/29/2023 at 10:09 AM, Moses said:

Not a "problems" - "prodems" = voters for Demparty.

 

21 hours ago, Moses said:

All 4 are transsexuals? Or what? Where you found "transphobia"?

I see 4 unhealthy looking ministers of Health. And my idea is" How they may care about health of other people, if they even can't care about own health"?

Thanks for the assist, @Latbear4blk.   And thanks for finally answering the question a few posts later, @Moses.

So, basically, the problem with Rachel Levine is you don't like the way she looks.

You tell me.  Which leader looks less healthy to you?  (And does it matter if they commit war crimes, or just look wrong?)

But since the subject of the thread is indicting Trump, how healthy does that guy look?

[Moses]

51 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

You tell me.  Which leader looks less healthy to you?  (And does it matter if they commit war crimes, or just look wrong?)

Why you show Prigozhin to me? He is private entrepreneur, owner of few companies and occupies zero state chair. So he is "leader" only to own employees. If you will ask me about his image, then I will tell: than more he will looks wild, then better -  Ukrainians will afraid him more.

Also why you show Prigozhin in the tread about Trump?

[stevenkesslar]

11 minutes ago, Moses said:

If you will ask me about his image, then I will tell: than more he will looks wild, then better -  Ukrainians will afraid him more.

Great.   So you like the way a scary war criminal who slaughters kids look.  And you don't like the way a transgender health leader who protects trans kids looks.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

[Moses]

24 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Great.   So you like the way a scary war criminal who slaughters kids look.  And you don't like the way a transgender health leader who protects trans kids looks.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

Fact what she is transgender doesn't relevant to look. Or you insist what all transgenders looking ugly?  

Health leader should looks healthy IMHO.

[stevenkesslar]

32 minutes ago, Moses said:

Fact what she is transgender doesn't relevant to look. Or you insist what all transgenders looking ugly?  

Health leader should looks healthy IMHO.

I never said she looked ugly.  If you think she's ugly, that is your opinion.  I think a murderous war criminal slaughtering innocent kids is uglier.  I think his murderous patron, Murderous Vlad, who he  has now betrayed, is uglier.  Ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly.  But that's just my opinion.

By comparison, Trump is a beautiful angel.  He doesn't slaughter kids.  He just gets fat playing golf and eating KFC.

But who am I to judge?  I'm just an ugly old queen.  😉

 

[Latbear4blk]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

Why you show Prigozhin to me? He is private entrepreneur, owner of few companies and occupies zero state chair. So he is "leader" only to own employees. If you will ask me about his image, then I will tell: than more he will looks wild, then better -  Ukrainians will afraid him more.

Also why you show Prigozhin in the tread about Trump?

Are you trying to say she looks too fat for her position? If that is your issue, I think she looks in better shape in the picture shared by @stevenkesslar.

Ultimately, I would not say how she looks to you is important. Is she healthy, or is she not? I do not know. Do you?

[floridarob]

3 hours ago, Moses said:

Why you show Prigozhin to me? He is private entrepreneur, owner of few companies and occupies zero state chair. So he is "leader" only to own employees. If you will ask me about his image, then I will tell: than more he will looks wild, then better -  Ukrainians will afraid him more.

Also why you show Prigozhin in the tread about Trump?

And why you didn't answer the last question with the photo of Trump 🙄