If Trump is found to have commited crimes in office how will Dems react?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Edit- As it's not possible to change the actual poll question ignore it and I'll "recalibrate"

Let's assume that Dems obtain power in midterms sufficient to cause the impeachment and removal of Trump in the event of actual criminality. I don't mean parking tickets, but actions which involve the Office of the President of the United States. It could be illegal campaign activity involving manipulation of the vote, including Russian quid pro, computer law violations, illegal actions involving the Presidency used for private personal gain, espionage, seditious acts, the whole gamut. It does not mean ex-post facto laws to create crimes, or financial illegalities beyond the scope of DOJ investigations. All above board and legit.

The Dems could use their position to protect and allow the DOJ to finish their job and publically support it. That is "Yes" in the poll

It could mean that the Dems would attempt to take actions to minimize and move on before the DOJ completes its work for "reconciliation" AKA how Ford viewed Nixon and this should be best forgotten rather than calling passionately for justice to be done to the full extent of the law.

That would be a no.

 

[woolfe9998]

You're going to have to be more specific. I assume you aren't referring to impeachment but actual criminal indictments which could occur, say, after a dem is elected POTUS in 2020?

Assuming it's the latter, I would oppose any dem administration pressuring the DoJ to prosecute Trump, just as I oppose Trump pressuring DoJ to not prosecute him and his associates. It's up to law enforcement and the AG to decide what to investigate and who to file charges against, regardless of which party is in the White House.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Depends, if it’s something like 20k worth of campaign funds were misused I’d say no.

However I’m not certain Republicans want to shit on everything I highly doubt Hillary or Bernie would get the same compassion

 

[LurchFrinky]

Prosecute or persecute?
Isn't it the judicial branch to prosecute?
If found criminally liable, he should be prosecuted regardless of political affiliation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I would hope that if he was found guilty of criminal activity he would be prosecuted no matter what party is in power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Prosecute or persecute?
Isn't it the judicial branch to prosecute?
If found criminally liable, he should be prosecuted regardless of political affiliation.

If the Dems get control they can support prosecution or they can say "mission accomplished". It would be naive to think politicians have no role in this.

 

[vi edit]

I think Dems have a good chance of taking over the house, so they can in theory bring forward articles of impeachment. However, I do not think they'll take the Senate, let alone a super majority required to convict. The only real power they will have is on oversite and obstruction of Republican/Trump agenda and ride it out through 2020.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're going to have to be more specific. I assume you aren't referring to impeachment but actual criminal indictments which could occur, say, after a dem is elected POTUS in 2020?

Assuming it's the latter, I would oppose any dem administration pressuring the DoJ to prosecute Trump, just as I oppose Trump pressuring DoJ to not prosecute him and his associates. It's up to law enforcement and the AG to decide what to investigate and who to file charges against, regardless of which party is in the White House.

I'm thinking once Democrats have sufficient power to prevent Republican obstruction. My belief is that once 2020 arrives we'll be "healing our nation" AKA sweeping it under the rug as with Iraq.

 

[woolfe9998]

If the Dems get control they can support prosecution or they can say "mission accomplished". It would be naive to think politicians have no role in this.

If a future dem POTUS tries to tamper with DoJ to encourage prosecution of members of the minority political party, then the dems would no longer have any moral high ground in their criticism of Trump's attempts to interfere with the DoJ for the opposite purpose. I sincerely hope that you are incorrect in your assumption that prosecuting Trump in the future would essentially be a political decision.

 

[Perknose]

I would hope that if he was found guilty of criminal activity he would be prosecuted no matter what party is in power.

Well, this . . . of course! No man is above the law, or should be.

If the Dems get control they can support prosecution or they can say "mission accomplished". It would be naive to think politicians have no role in this.

Well, if this is what you meant, I'd ask you to amend the inelegant and wildly imprecise wording of your poll.

Also, although I've been registered as a Democrat since Dubya's second, problematic to me, electoral "victory," I'm not sure I consider the Democratic Party "my party." Btw, what party is "your party" and how are you registered, Rich . . . and why?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If a future dem POTUS tries to tamper with DoJ to encourage prosecution of members of the minority political party, then the dems would no longer have any moral high ground in their criticism of Trump's attempts to interfere with the DoJ for the opposite purpose. I sincerely hope that you are incorrect in your assumption that prosecuting Trump in the future would essentially be a political decision.

For clarification I mean to not discourage any investigation and not oppose but encourage lawful justice be done.

 

[hal2kilo]

If a future dem POTUS tries to tamper with DoJ to encourage prosecution of members of the minority political party, then the dems would no longer have any moral high ground in their criticism of Trump's attempts to interfere with the DoJ for the opposite purpose. I sincerely hope that you are incorrect in your assumption that prosecuting Trump in the future would essentially be a political decision.

Banana republics prosecute previous administrations. So far, we aren't a Banana republic yet. Our currently un-politicized Justice Department cannot be used as a tool of political punishment. Our democracy would quickly evaporate. As it is now, the SCOTUS is composed of politicians in robes. How much further down this road do we want to go?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Banana republics prosecute previous administrations. So far, we aren't a Banana republic yet. Our currently un-politicized Justice Department cannot be used as a tool of political punishment. Our democracy would quickly evaporate. As it is now, the SCOTUS is composed of politicians in robes. How much further down this road do we want to go?

So you would vote for stopping the investigations and allowing Trump and his to be free of criminal consequences for what he's done. Conspiring with the Russians. everything just "Na, it's all good brah"

So noted.

 

[hal2kilo]

So you would vote for stopping the investigations and allowing Trump and his to be free of criminal consequences for what he's done. Conspiring with the Russians. everything just "Na, it's all good brah"

So noted.

If we had laws that exiled people for these kinds of crimes I would be all for it.

 

[fskimospy]

It really depends on how bad it is. In order to warrant prosecution in my mind it would have to be very bad, like treasonous sort of bad. Not that he doesn’t deserve it, but because the health of the republic is more important than jailing a real estate crook.

What will be interesting is if what I think will happen actually happens, assuming Mueller isn’t fired or obstructed which would prompt a constitutional crisis. If Mueller or another prosecutor ends up with access to Trump’s finances I find it likely they will find a large number of prosecutable felonies for money laundering, maybe fraud, etc. Those are things that would land any normal person in prison but because they don’t directly relate to the presidency I wonder if we just chalk up his not going to prison as the cost of getting him out of our hair. His supporters would certainly view any attempt at justice as some sort of attack on the republic.

Even more interesting is if say, the New York State AG decides to prosecute.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wonder if we just chalk up his not going to prison as the cost of getting him out of our hair.

These are independent things. If Trump is impeached and removed he is still criminally liable for any actions he's done.

My sense of things as I see them here is that there won't be justice for wrongs actually done and the apologists will come out in droves to justify everything they fail to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If we had laws that exiled people for these kinds of crimes I would be all for it.

We have laws that no one is exempt from including Presidents. Once out of office they have no immunity for their actions. The question is if we act like a third world country and crush justice for the ruling class or a first world nation who treats all their citizens the same under law and holds them accountable.

I take it you are for unaccountability by our "betters" as you haven't said otherwise.

 

[Younigue]

I said No.

I think they'll be content with impeaching and possibly a resignation. House Dems prove themselves weak on the regular. It's a problem.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I was unhappy with the question itself. "Will . . . . " they prosecute versus "Should . . "They prosecute."

I think it somewhat likely that they won't, because Obama let the Bush administration off the hook for the war and Scooter. I think it's time to get tough, though.

As we have debated -- there is a limit to tolerance. With the sort of depraved corruption, destruction of the public sector and possible treason Trump has wrought so far, the lesson must be taught even if the Republic does not survive it.

How serious is it, to destroy all of our alliances or damage them badly, to provoke more confrontation (with China) while playing patty-cake with DPRK, to strengthen the hand of the Russians and look the other way in the wake of their psy-war election projects? Great again? No -- lower than crocodile piss.

They must be held to book and account for their disastrous ill-informed mistakes. It moves in the direction of "killing us all." And they whine that we're "sore losers" for Clinton's loss. Who, today, would not have reluctantly gone along with a Jeb Bush, a Chris Christie, a Marco Rubio or even (God forbid!) a Ted Cruz administration? No -- sorry -- but we're pissed that we're all losers now, and the chuckleheads who needed Russian assistance to override a popular Clinton win don't even see the shitstorm we've stumbled into with "The Idiot."

There is no more time, and no more room for a dialogue. You won't get straight talk from Steve Cortes or Jason Miller or Rudy Giulliani or Hogan "Alfalfa" Gidley or Kelly Ann Conway or Sarah Sanders. You only get contrived arguments from selectively chosen factoids and carefully crafted falsehoods.

People should be punished for breaking the law. If you can't prove it -- as was the case with the very real witch-hunt of Clinton -- you don't get to lock them up. But you can impeach, you can impede. The Republicans have engaged in wishful thinking as to proof and law-breaking, contriving absurd arguments and charges. But there are enough facts so far to make it most likely Trump has done irreparable damage already -- as Putin's 21st century Manchurian Candidate -- to our diplomatic missions around the world, to our allies, to the continuity of a viable agreement over Iran -- the list goes on. He'll do damage to the economy, or I'll bet on it. He's done needless damage to the health-care system, and many in the poorer states of his base will suffer for it. It is absurd how those surrogates I mentioned keep insisting after only a year the wonderful "results" of Trump's reign in the economy, and it's all mythical -- taking credit and advantage for everything done by Obama. And it is almost symbolic, how Trump's wife has now availed herself of Michelle Obama's accomplishments twice so far.

 

[sdifox]

If we had laws that exiled people for these kinds of crimes I would be all for it.

Gitmo is still operating right?

 

[soundforbjt]

Pence, if he survives the investigation would pardon Trump. So it doesn’t really matter, unless NY state has him on something.

 

[woolfe9998]

I was unhappy with the question itself. "Will . . . . " they prosecute versus "Should . . "They prosecute."

I think it somewhat likely that they won't, because Obama let the Bush administration off the hook for the war and Scooter. I think it's time to get tough, though.

No, the DoJ under Obama "let them off the hook," not Obama himself. We have seen no evidence that Obama interfered with the prosecutorial discretion conferred upon the DoJ. If he had, he'd be no better than Trump in this regard. The same goes for the Wall Street people who were not prosecuted. Those on the left who have criticized Obama for not prosecuting certain people are now reasoning inconsistently because they are screaming over Trump interfering with the current DoJ. Prosecutorial decisions are a matter for prosecutors, not POTUSES.

 

[interchange]

This is a trick question. You can't be found guilty of criminal activity without prosecution...

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a trick question. You can't be found guilty of criminal activity without prosecution...

This is a tricky answer because I am left in my stupidity wondering what exactly the trick question was. I realize, of course, there is only so much time in the day to devote to the slow. I did, however, try to figure it out but failed to.