It Looks Like Trump is Gearing up for a Presidential Run (2024).

[fskimospy]

They can want to do it, or think it needs done, and still not go through with it for the reasons I listed earlier. It's not an inconsistent position. Again, I don't agree with it (not doing anything) or advocate for it. I just think that's what's going to end up happening.

I do not think wanting Trump prosecuted as a threat to democracy and not wanting to be confrontational are compatible stances.

It is unlikely, but possible that they decide not to prosecute due to other considerations, but if one of the reasons for you thinking they would not prosecute is a desire not to be confrontational this directly undercuts that idea so it should move the needle at least a little in favor of indictment.

 

[Pens1566]

I do not think wanting Trump prosecuted as a threat to democracy and not wanting to be confrontational are compatible stances.

Yeah, well politics is full of weird choices/decisions.

It is unlikely, but possible that they decide not to prosecute due to other considerations, but if one of the reasons for you thinking they would not prosecute is a desire not to be confrontational this directly undercuts that idea so it should move the needle at least a little in favor of indictment.

Maybe "confrontational" isn't the most accurate word choice, but Biden is renowned for his history of trying to work, or get along, with the other side. Maddeningly so. Like I said, it's the one thing that really bugs me about him. I fail to see how that trait that's been demonstrated over a ridiculously long public career wouldn't play a role in possibly the largest issue (so far) that has ever been in front of him.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, well politics is full of weird choices/decisions.

Maybe "confrontational" isn't the most accurate word choice, but Biden is renowned for his history of trying to work, or get along, with the other side. Maddeningly so. Like I said, it's the one thing that really bugs me about him. I fail to see how that trait that's been demonstrated over a ridiculously long public career wouldn't play a role in possibly the largest issue (so far) that has ever been in front of him.

I would say that the evidence available to us shows that whatever desires not to be confrontational Biden has they are exceeded by other considerations, hence his desire to see Trump prosecuted.

I mean it's possible the story is wrong or Biden is lying to his staff about his desires but absent one of the above we don't really need to do anything else - we already know the answer and that is for indictment.

 

[Pens1566]

I would say that the evidence available to us shows that whatever desires not to be confrontational Biden has they are exceeded by other considerations, hence his desire to see Trump prosecuted.

I mean it's possible the story is wrong or Biden is lying to his staff about his desires but absent one of the above we don't really need to do anything else - we already know the answer and that is for indictment.

Well, technically speaking it really shouldn't be up to Biden at all. DoJ independence and all ... Garland's call in that scenario.

I think, at the most, we'll get some lower level sacrificial prosecutions. Maybe up to the level of Meadows as far as members of the administration. But, as the distance to TFG decreases, so will the charges. Talking false statements to federal agents level if it gets as high as Meadows. Too many unresolved legal issues (some that no one really wants to answer as well ... executive privilege, etc.) the higher you get. Even the low level/staff charges will be long and difficult. Outside the bounds of the admin? I could see some charges for Eastman, Rudy, Stone, Bannon, and the like. They're in the "fall guy" level for sure.

 

[Paratus]

If you can't or won't see what happens in this forum as a left leaning echo chamber I can't help you and your blindness.

When anyone expresses any right leaning ideas of thoughts / opinions they get lambasted by the echo chamber.

So which views are being lambasted?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, technically speaking it really shouldn't be up to Biden at all. DoJ independence and all ... Garland's call in that scenario.

I think, at the most, we'll get some lower level sacrificial prosecutions. Maybe up to the level of Meadows as far as members of the administration. But, as the distance to TFG decreases, so will the charges. Talking false statements to federal agents level if it gets as high as Meadows. Too many unresolved legal issues (some that no one really wants to answer as well ... executive privilege, etc.) the higher you get. Even the low level/staff charges will be long and difficult. Outside the bounds of the admin? I could see some charges for Eastman, Rudy, Stone, Bannon, and the like. They're in the "fall guy" level for sure.

I don't think so - the cases present are fairly straightforward and don't involve executive privilege. For example the texts from Meadows' aide to Hutchinson are obstruction of justice and/or witness tampering most likely. Depending on if it can be established that Meadows directed them to be sent he is in very serious danger.

As far as Trump goes, assuming they can establish Hutchinson's assertion that Trump said to remove the metal detectors that most likely satisfies the criminal intent required for incitement as he displayed knowledge that his followers were armed and in fact wanted to make it easier for people with weapons to participate. On top of that it also provides evidence for obstruction of Congress as Trump knew the crowd he was directing towards the capitol was heavily armed and not only did nothing to impede it, directly encouraged them to go there. Some people have argued he can and should also be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy, which seems like a bit of a reach to me but still plausible.

None of this requires answering difficult legal questions of executive privilege or whatever, the only legal question to be answered is if it's ever okay to prosecute a former president. I think the answer to that is yes.

 

[thilanliyan]

So even direct reporting from a reputable source that Biden wants what you said he didn't does zero to change your mind?

That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't evidence change people's minds?

I think you're putting too much faith in logic in these times

 

[Pens1566]

I don't think so - the cases present are fairly straightforward and don't involve executive privilege. For example the texts from Meadows' aide to Hutchinson are obstruction of justice and/or witness tampering most likely. Depending on if it can be established that Meadows directed them to be sent he is in very serious danger.

I was just using privilege as an easy example (the congressmen involved have even mentioned speech and debate clause as well) , but almost anything legal process wise revolving around the president (even former) is going to be virgin territory and a fucking minefield to navigate. There are lots of parties that don't want that ground to be covered and precedent determined as it currently provides a gray area for the power of the executive branch and they prefer it not to be restricted. That would likely entail a really long, drawn out process to SCOTUS and doesn't include any analysis of what that current group of batshit theocrats would decide.

As for the Meadows bits ... they're still process crimes that are related to the cover up and not any of the actual acts in question. I'd still consider those minor charges. Still valid, but not really the juicy stuff that's way harder to prove and prosecute successfully.

As far as Trump goes, assuming they can establish Hutchinson's assertion that Trump said to remove the metal detectors that most likely satisfies the criminal intent required for incitement as he displayed knowledge that his followers were armed and in fact wanted to make it easier for people with weapons to participate. On top of that it also provides evidence for obstruction of Congress as Trump knew the crowd he was directing towards the capitol was heavily armed and not only did nothing to impede it, directly encouraged them to go there. Some people have argued he can and should also be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy, which seems like a bit of a reach to me but still plausible.

None of this requires answering difficult legal questions of executive privilege or whatever, the only legal question to be answered is if it's ever okay to prosecute a former president. I think the answer to that is yes.

"assuming they can" ... "most likely" ... and again, that's if you can navigate all the process/admission questions that I already talked about.

It would literally be one of the most complicated, difficult prosecutions in the history of the country. One that would most likely have immediate negative impacts in terms of further partisan divide/violence that would in all likelihood last the duration. Huge impacts to limitations/expansions of executive (and congressional really) power depending on what precedents are set. Catastrophic political fallout if the prosecution fails. Vindication of Trump/MAGA would further embolden an already dangerous trend on the right. And, if all the planets align, and you navigate the process, win at SCOTUS for whatever gets to that level, Trump somehow lives out the ~5-ish or so years to get through all that, and convict ...


I agree with you at a fundamental level. The guy is guilty. Dirty as you can fucking be. And not just for what's being dealt with by the 1/6 committee. I'm just saying that all of the above is likely being considered ... and I don't know of anyone in our current government that has shown any level of initiative (or whatever you want to call it) that tells me they'd be willing to go through it all and hitch their wagon to the outcome. They just want to keep their jobs, they don't want to actually do their jobs.

 

[fskimospy]

I was just using privilege as an easy example (the congressmen involved have even mentioned speech and debate clause as well) , but almost anything legal process wise revolving around the president (even former) is going to be virgin territory and a fucking minefield to navigate. There are lots of parties that don't want that ground to be covered and precedent determined as it currently provides a gray area for the power of the executive branch and they prefer it not to be restricted. That would likely entail a really long, drawn out process to SCOTUS and doesn't include any analysis of what that current group of batshit theocrats would decide.

As for the Meadows bits ... they're still process crimes that are related to the cover up and not any of the actual acts in question. I'd still consider those minor charges. Still valid, but not really the juicy stuff that's way harder to prove and prosecute successfully.



"assuming they can" ... "most likely" ... and again, that's if you can navigate all the process/admission questions that I already talked about.

It would literally be one of the most complicated, difficult prosecutions in the history of the country. One that would most likely have immediate negative impacts in terms of further partisan divide/violence that would in all likelihood last the duration. Huge impacts to limitations/expansions of executive (and congressional really) power depending on what precedents are set. Catastrophic political fallout if the prosecution fails. Vindication of Trump/MAGA would further embolden an already dangerous trend on the right. And, if all the planets align, and you navigate the process, win at SCOTUS for whatever gets to that level, Trump somehow lives out the ~5-ish or so years to get through all that, and convict ...


I agree with you at a fundamental level. The guy is guilty. Dirty as you can fucking be. And not just for what's being dealt with by the 1/6 committee. I'm just saying that all of the above is likely being considered ... and I don't know of anyone in our current government that has shown any level of initiative (or whatever you want to call it) that tells me they'd be willing to go through it all and hitch their wagon to the outcome. They just want to keep their jobs, they don't want to actually do their jobs.

If you're interested in some more reading from highly qualified people from a well regarded source that covers most of your concerns and comes down firmly on the side of indictment you should check this out:

Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Changed Our Minds About Indicting Donald Trump

Hutchinson’s testimony on former President Trump’s comments during Jan. 6 serve as additional proof of intent and context, and—crucially—a material act to increase

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[MrSquished]

Biden has been weak. They won't do shit about de scheduling marijuana on the federal level, he is not calling out the Republicans out forcefully enough. Even if he can't get this bullshit Senate to pass things, he should be laying out a case to the American people with honest talk.

From an article I read yesterday The Biden White House was completely unprepared for the roe v Wade ruling. It didn't really have a statement ready and key people that would respond we're not even in the White House at the time, one was out walking or something.

I don't think they know how to handle this insane Republican party.

 

[Brovane]

Biden has been weak. They won't do shit about de scheduling marijuana on the federal level, he is not calling out the Republicans out forcefully enough. Even if he can't get this bullshit Senate to pass things, he should be laying out a case to the American people with honest talk.

From an article I read yesterday The Biden White House was completely unprepared for the roe v Wade ruling. It didn't really have a statement ready and key people that would respond we're not even in the White House at the time, one was out walking or something.

I don't think they know how to handle this insane Republican party.

How could you be unprepared for the roe v wade ruling? The Democrats are going have to step up if they expect to take on the Republicans in the Mid-terms and in 2024.

 

[Pens1566]

If you're interested in some more reading from highly qualified people from a well regarded source that covers most of your concerns and comes down firmly on the side of indictment you should check this out:

Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Changed Our Minds About Indicting Donald Trump

Hutchinson’s testimony on former President Trump’s comments during Jan. 6 serve as additional proof of intent and context, and—crucially—a material act to increase

www.lawfareblog.com

I'd read it previously when it came out, and don't disagree with it... but it only addresses the legal "should we" or "could we" question in a purely academic exercise. Yes, we should. Will anyone? That's what I doubt.

 

[Pens1566]

How could you be unprepared for the roe v wade ruling? The Democrats are going have to step up if they expect to take on the Republicans in the Mid-terms and in 2024.

Because, outside of some of the progressive wing, they're expecting a fair fight by some archaic standards of decorum that simply don't fucking exist any longer (if they ever did). And Biden is that sentiment personified.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd read it previously when it came out, and don't disagree with it... but it only addresses the legal "should we" or "could we" question in a purely academic exercise. Yes, we should. Will anyone? That's what I doubt.

No, it addresses political aspects of it as well. Regardless I don't think there's anything I can present that will change your mind so I'll leave it at that - you will be awfully surprised I guess.

 

[woolfe9998]

I do not think wanting Trump prosecuted as a threat to democracy and not wanting to be confrontational are compatible stances.

It is unlikely, but possible that they decide not to prosecute due to other considerations, but if one of the reasons for you thinking they would not prosecute is a desire not to be confrontational this directly undercuts that idea so it should move the needle at least a little in favor of indictment.

I think Garland's frame of mind is that it entirely depends on the evidence and what he thinks is his probability of securing a conviction. Garland is going off the old adage, if you're going to kill the king, don't miss. Because missing is worse than not taking the shot. Not going to debate whether this is the right or wrong way to think about this, but I'm pretty certain that's where he is.

Right now based on evidence I'm aware of I give it 50/50 chance that Garland charges Trump. I may change that view after additional hearings. Particularly if there's more evidence going to Trump's state of mind and intent.

 

[Pens1566]

No, it addresses political aspects of it as well. Regardless I don't think there's anything I can present that will change your mind so I'll leave it at that - you will be awfully surprised I guess.

It didn't address any political aspects, merely mentioned it as a fragment of a single sentence in the 2nd to last paragraph as if it was inconsequential ... "will no doubt do immense short-term damage to American political stability" and wrapped it up. It was entirely a legal analysis.

And I hope I am surprised. I'm just not emotionally investing anything in that outcome.

 

[fskimospy]

I think Garland's frame of mind is that it entirely depends on the evidence and what he thinks is his probability of securing a conviction. Garland is going off the old adage, if you're going to kill the king, don't miss. Because missing is worse than not taking the shot. Not going to debate whether this is the right or wrong way to think about this, but I'm pretty certain that's where he is.

Right now based on evidence I'm aware of I give it 50/50 chance that Garland charges Trump. I may change that view after additional hearings. Particularly if there's more evidence going to Trump's state of mind and intent.

I agree with you - I think the consequences of losing for the DOJ are much more significant here than it would be for a regular case and that makes them less likely to indict. I don't think it's 50/50 though, I would put it at at least 2-1 odds in favor. I would be shocked if Trump is not indicted on at least one count, specifically obstructing a congressional proceeding if for no other reason than you can go after him on that charge from multiple angles. (the Pence scheme, the Capitol riot, etc.)

 

[fskimospy]

It didn't address any political aspects, merely mentioned it as a fragment of a single sentence in the 2nd to last paragraph as if it was inconsequential ... "will no doubt do immense short-term damage to American political stability" and wrapped it up. It was entirely a legal analysis.

And I hope I am surprised. I'm just not emotionally investing anything in that outcome.

This is not accurate. I would suggest you re-read the 'DOJ's changed calculus' section, which is in large part a discussion of the various political aspects of this, both current and future.

 

[Pens1566]

This is not accurate. I would suggest you re-read the 'DOJ's changed calculus' section, which is in large part a discussion of the various political aspects of this, both current and future.

No, it's answering 3 legal/DoJ policy/ethics predicates for prosecution. Well, 2 really. It immediately dismisses one because of DC being the location the alleged offenses took place.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's answering 3 legal/DoJ policy/ethics predicates for prosecution. Well, 2 really. It immediately dismisses one because of DC being the location the alleged offenses took place.

No.

We think the answers to these questions are yes and no. Beside the general interest in enforcing federal criminal law, a prosecution of Trump would accomplish three important purposes. First, it would send a clear message that no one, not even the president, is above the law. This, unfortunately, is not a fringe position. From former President Richard Nixon’s statement that “[w]hen the president does it … that means that it is not illegal,” to Trump’s claim that “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” the poisonous idea of an extralegal president has posed an increasing threat to American democracy. A criminal prosecution would go a long way toward countering that threat.

Politics.

Second, a prosecution would deter future presidents, and their enablers, from engaging in the sort of extreme, anti-democratic conduct that Trump embraced. Of course, deterrence can go too far, and it is a legitimate concern to worry about creating an overly cautious and risk-averse executive. But just because a prosecution would have chilling effects doesn’t mean that all chilling effects are bad. We want future presidents to err well on the side of respecting the democratic process: extra caution is no bad thing.

Politics.

The ordinary political process seems unable to deal with Trump, so there is no “adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.

Politics.

We recognize the radical implications of this last point. It’s essentially a call to allow political considerations to enter into what should ordinarily be completely removed from politics: the weighty responsibilities of the federal prosecutor.

They even come straight out and say it's politics!

Trump, as he so often does, has left the country facing a painful dilemma. Attorney General Merrick Garland has no good options, only bad ones. But the bad options are not all equally bad. While we certainly don’t envy Garland and the difficult decision he has to make, we think that, after Tuesday’s testimony, letting Trump off the hook poses a greater threat to American democracy than does prosecuting him.

More politics!

I don't know how this could be any more clear. Hell, the DOJ guidelines are inherently political - what serves the interests of justice is often a political calculation!

 

[Pens1566]

No.


Politics.



Politics.



Politics.



They even come straight out and say it's politics!



More politics!

I don't know how this could be any more clear. Hell, the DOJ guidelines are inherently political - what serves the interests of justice is often a political calculation!

And you conveniently omit the 3 questions ...

"At the federal level, this means that a prosecutor should bring charges unless “(1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” The second requirement does not apply in this case because the actions at issue took place in Washington, D.C. "

Those aren't political questions. They apply to EVERY case they charge. And are general in nature. Preceding line:

"The prosecutor must also conclude that “the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.”" ... that's a legal ethics question.

 

[fskimospy]

And you conveniently omit the 3 questions ...

"At the federal level, this means that a prosecutor should bring charges unless “(1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” The second requirement does not apply in this case because the actions at issue took place in Washington, D.C. "

Those aren't political questions. They apply to EVERY case they charge. And are general in nature. Preceding line:

"The prosecutor must also conclude that “the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.”" ... that's a legal ethics question.

To repeat:

We recognize the radical implications of this last point. It’s essentially a call to allow political considerations to enter into what should ordinarily be completely removed from politics: the weighty responsibilities of the federal prosecutor.

So the authors of the piece disagree with you. Also, if you think (1) and (3) are not political questions, especially when it comes to politicians, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[pcgeek11]

popular conservative policies:

secure the border - rooted in racism/xenophobia
secure voting - rooted in racism
muslim ban - rooted in racism
trickle down - 50 years has proven it doesn't work
tax cuts for the rich - 50 years has proven it doesn't work
america first - rooted in racism/xenophobia
no welfare - proven to keep people poor
no universal healthcare - proven to keep people sick AND poor
massive police state - gives us the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world
widespread available guns - gives us the highest gun death rate in the (edit: developed) world
abortion bans - proven to completely screw women, especially those who are poor and/or black
"free speech" - never really about free speech

now, you're welcome to dispute those points with actual data, but until then...

Where is your "Actual Data".

 

[pcgeek11]

Did you vote for Trump or Biden?

Trump is mentally unfit also, but if you voted for him, what's really your beef with Biden?

Trump.

I've already outlined my thoughts on Biden.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I think Garland's frame of mind is that it entirely depends on the evidence and what he thinks is his probability of securing a conviction. Garland is going off the old adage, if you're going to kill the king, don't miss. Because missing is worse than not taking the shot. Not going to debate whether this is the right or wrong way to think about this, but I'm pretty certain that's where he is.

Right now based on evidence I'm aware of I give it 50/50 chance that Garland charges Trump. I may change that view after additional hearings. Particularly if there's more evidence going to Trump's state of mind and intent.

Do you need more evodence of intent than we already have? "Theyre not here to hurt me, take the fucking mags away!" Is pretty unequivocal on intent. What else is there? You need more than one statement to prove intentm