Now that it is well established that Trump supported the overthrow of the elected government...

@ineedadrink Cute, but in this case, I'm not sure it doesn't.

Leaving aside the issue of actually getting a jury to convict and the ethics and politics, of bringing a case you don't think you can win, there's still an issue of the common good in bringing such a case, especially when either a loss or a win may have severe consequences in terms of human life and the stability of civilization.

I know it sounds hyperbolic, but a large portion of Trump's base is itching for blood and chaos, and charging him for trying to stir them up to satisfy to slake those lusts seems like doubling down in the same kind of way Trump does.

Even if a prosecutor is absolutely convinced that Trump "should" be charged from a moral or legal perspective based on the facts of the case, it seems to me that there's balancing factors to be considered, not just politically for the folks doing it, but also for the consequences to the potential victims, both directly and indirectly of that decision.

To be clear, prosecuting Trump (lets not get into treason as opposed to other offenses), may well stir up a number of things:

1) violence stemming from his supporters and those wanting to commit acts of violence against them;

2) a lack of trust in the judicial system leading to more violence;

3) a total collapse of the government that otherwise might do good things;

and of course, 4) a political backlash and replacement of a fragile democratically committed government by the election of an executive less committed and willing to do whatever is necessary to serve its own ends.


Sorry for replying to a cute and funny comment with a speech, but, hey, it was an opening.

@MistyCee And there is something else that I haven't seen discussed yet. Given that probably somewhere around 30-40% of Americans support Trump in his entirety, no matter what he does, how are you going to get a jury that will consider the evidence fairly? All it takes is one Cultist on a jury, and the vote to convict will never be unanimous. But with that many Trump supporters, is a jury comprised solely of people who do not support Trump a fair jury? Or it inconsistent with the notion of being judged by a jury of your peers? A juror could lie about his/her Trump support and vote to acquit regardless of the evidence. They could be convicted of lying pre-trial and a mistrial declared, but that won't result in conviction. Think about how difficult it may be to select an impartial jury that is representative.

@MistyCee And not one that I disagree with.

@MistyCee "a large proportion of Trump's base is itching for blood and choas" ffs you do realise that's tens of millions of people? Immature little turd.

@SW-User A cnn watcher I see