Why hasn't Merrick Garland charged Trump with insurrection yet?
Is he hoping Trump will run again, so the Dems don't have to do anything to win?
61-69
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
The best explanation I have heard so far came from Chris Christie on this morning's This Week. A former federal prosecutor before becoming Governor of New Jersey, he said every prosecutor weighs the probability odds of winning in court before deciding to actually indict, and that where you draw the acceptable line on the odds to prosecute depends upon the crime and the cost of prosecuting, and it will vary from prosecutor to prosecutor and crime to crime. However, you can be sure that the acceptable probability line for indicting a former President of the U.S. is at the 99.9% level for EVERY prosecutor because they realize prosecuting and not winning against a former President will do more harm to the Republic and democracy than not prosecuting.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue So the idea of "Justice" doesnt enter into it.😷
softspokenman · M
@dancingtongue This presents a Delima. Prosecuting Trump will cause harm to the country and democracy. Not prosecuting Trump will bring harm to the country and democracy. "Cost-benefit analysis"
Trumps war against the government would come from a self appointed armed militia. The governments war against Trump: The United States Military will always protect the Constitution and the America people from a foreign or domestic enemy.
Trumps war against the government would come from a self appointed armed militia. The governments war against Trump: The United States Military will always protect the Constitution and the America people from a foreign or domestic enemy.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@whowasthatmaskedman
Seldom ever has in the U.S. at any level, from arrest to prosecution/defense to sentencing.
So the idea of "Justice" doesn't enter into it
Seldom ever has in the U.S. at any level, from arrest to prosecution/defense to sentencing.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@softspokenman
You have hit on the one thing that I think has gone largely unexplored or unexplained about January 6: the delay in requesting or response to requests for National Guard assistance and/or the lack of intervention by the military or National Guard upon orders of the Commander-in-Chief who was still in the Oval Office. My suspicion is that both sides of the political spectrum feared the optics of military involvement (if they didn't fear it was a coin flip on which side the military would go), while the wise senior military leaders truly feared the optics and having to make a choice between their Constitutional oath and orders from the Commander-in-Chief, so put up as many road blocks and delaying tactics as they could. And I don't think they are as confident that their successors "will always protect the Constitution", which is why you began seeing a weeding out of political activists in the ranks once the evidence began rolling in about how many of those who stormed the Capitol were retired, reserve, and even active military personnel.
Yes, it is a Hobson's choice dilemma whether to prosecute or not. Which is why the Select Committee is focused on going as public as they can with what they can piece together as to what was happening without asking for an indictment. And why, in all likelihood, should the DOJ decide to indict and prosecute that Biden is likely to take a page out of Ford's playbook and pardon Trump in order to "end this National Nightmare" and defuse any allegation that it is solely a vindictive partisan witchhunt.
The United States Military will always protect the Constitution and the America people from a foreign or domestic enemy.
You have hit on the one thing that I think has gone largely unexplored or unexplained about January 6: the delay in requesting or response to requests for National Guard assistance and/or the lack of intervention by the military or National Guard upon orders of the Commander-in-Chief who was still in the Oval Office. My suspicion is that both sides of the political spectrum feared the optics of military involvement (if they didn't fear it was a coin flip on which side the military would go), while the wise senior military leaders truly feared the optics and having to make a choice between their Constitutional oath and orders from the Commander-in-Chief, so put up as many road blocks and delaying tactics as they could. And I don't think they are as confident that their successors "will always protect the Constitution", which is why you began seeing a weeding out of political activists in the ranks once the evidence began rolling in about how many of those who stormed the Capitol were retired, reserve, and even active military personnel.
Yes, it is a Hobson's choice dilemma whether to prosecute or not. Which is why the Select Committee is focused on going as public as they can with what they can piece together as to what was happening without asking for an indictment. And why, in all likelihood, should the DOJ decide to indict and prosecute that Biden is likely to take a page out of Ford's playbook and pardon Trump in order to "end this National Nightmare" and defuse any allegation that it is solely a vindictive partisan witchhunt.
softspokenman · M
@dancingtongue If Biden gave Trump a pardon it would not end The National Nightmare that Trump created. Nixon never reached the point that Trump has. The situation now is Democracy and the Constitution or Trump.
softspokenman · M
@dancingtongue If Biden did give Trump a pardon that would cause chaos and division in the democratic party, something that Trump would like to happen. Trump has divided the Republican party between people who back him and people who vote their conscience and the Constitution, Divide and Conquer. If there is a definition for RINO it is Trump. "All hail the Conquering hero." ?
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@softspokenman True, but I do believe that unifying the country is more than rhetoric for Biden and his number 1 priority over appeasing the progressive wing of his own party. It was even a worse political decision for Ford with Nixon, since Nixon hand picked him as VP -- he wasn't elected by voters -- and it smelled of collusion to Democrats, Independents, and a majority of the Republican party which had turned against Nixon after the revelations of the Watergate hearings by a bi-partisan commission. Statesmen do what is best for the country, not for party or ideology and what we have lost sight of in this century is that once the election is over we want those who were elected to become statesman who govern -- not politicians immediately running for re-election and pushing an ideology.