imo the reason it's the right thing to do to prosecute is that (1) you don't know for sure that bringing it will cause a backlash that will eventually result in a worse outcome than not doing so, (2) there is still a perfectly convincing probability a just conviction will be obtained, and (3) by not prosecuting -you- (US Gov) are the reason that chance is lost.

Unless you have clear evidence for (1), the only ethical thing to do is to bring the case.

It is an essential pretense of the rule of law that things are never decided by naked force.

Failing to prosecute Trump (not just for this!) would be an admission that Trump possesses more force than the rule of law, at which point it should give up and go home.

Also, if nothing else, this might make it easier to prosecute Trump for his other crimes, currently being investigated. Jack Smith has taken the historical step; everybody else gets to be a footnote.

The battle lines are drawn, the troops entrenched. This will come to a head at some point in our future history, if not now. Just packing it in and leaving the field is no longer an option, if we're taking our best shot at preserving our democracy.

Oh, you want the short answer? Fuck, yes!

If Elizabeth Jo Shirley can get eight years for effectively the same crime, then the small handed orange buffoon should get twice that otherwise US law is definitely two tier.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/west-virginia-woman-sentenced-willful-retention-top-secret-national-defense-information-and

West Virginia Woman Sentenced for Willful Retention of Top Secret National Defense Information and International Parental Kidnapping

Elizabeth Jo Shirley, of Hedgesville, West Virginia, was sentenced today to 97 months of incarceration for unlawfully retaining documents containing national defense information and 36 months of incarceration for international parental kidnapping.

^{www.justice.gov}

If we refuse to prosecute powerful criminals like Donald Trump because we’re afraid of their followers, the US is already gone.

The argument against prosecuting is an argument from cowardice.

yes.

The “consequences” are people committing crimes that should be prosecuted; NOT prosecuting is a bigger crime.

“It’s popular to say America’s in civilizational decline. It’s possible; I don’t know. I’m skeptical of narratives that make us extraordinary. But I know this: if we’re going down, we should go down swinging, not cringing.”

I’m taking your statement very much to heart today.

Your article shows that the whole American people are involved in this case.

If they don't make it clear that they will not tolerate clear bias from judges and juries, or intimidation, then they will have shown that they really don't believe in democracy at all.

Hell, yes.

Good men ... do nothing ... etc etc

Of course. He makes things go.

Deep Trek reference. Your turn.

2000: "WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON - The Whitewater independent counsel concluded yesterday that an investigation that consumed six years and $52 million ...", "No Clinton charges ...", https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2000-09-21-0009210060-story.html

2015: "McCarthy Credits Benghazi Committee with Hurting Clinton’s Poll Numbers", https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/mccarthy-credits-benghazi-committee-with-hurting-clintons-poll-numbers/447720/

"Final Benghazi report: No 'smoking gun' pointing to Clinton", https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2016/06/28/final-benghazi-report-no-smoking-gun-pointing-to-clinton/

Final Benghazi report: No 'smoking gun' pointing to Clinton

House Republicans on Tuesday concluded their $7 million, two-year investigation into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, with fresh accusations of lethal mistakes by the Obama administration but no "smoking gun" pointing to wrongdoing by Hillary C…

^{Matthew Daly, The Associated Press (Military Times)}

“If you make me obey this “Go Directly to Jail” card I’ll take $500 from the bank next time I pass Go.”

“You do that anyway and threaten to physically beat me if I do it!”

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind,
alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it,
and there never has been."

~Frank Wilhoit, composer
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

#Conservative #Conservatism #Republicans #GOP #USA #Meme

right?

Now we're going to throw a tantrum on top of the decade-long tantrum we're already in the middle of, because you're actually enforcing the laws that we claim we unabashedly support with all our hearts.

We're not playing nice already, but now we're REALLY not going to play nice and we're threatening to break even more laws in retaliation for you following the laws we say we support!

Liberals are so unhinged and on a witch hunt!

They do! and then swallow it as a misguided point of pride.

They'd gladly let this ship sink before changing their ways.

Some are now saying it's impossible and that "he's done," BUT...if Trump gets re-elected, lots of norms will be on the chopping block. One of those norms is the rule of law itself.

The 25th Amendment provides that the Cabinet may deem the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” and thus remove him. That would have to be done ASAP.