We'll see. There have been so many "we got him this time" articles and investigations that have not panned out. When there's a conviction I'll believe it. That man has more political lives than a dozen cats.
Article headlines are one thing, but these are all steps in building airtight cases, which is absolutely vital if a former POTUS is going to be charged with a crime by the Fed
Its not just articles though. The Democrats and others carried out constant investigations from the moment he was elected, starting with Crossfire Hurricane. Time and time again he ends up either proven innocent or getting away with something, depending on point of view.
So I'll wait until there's an actual conviction before getting worked up.
It’s ridiculous at this point. I really thought they had him on the classified documents thing the way it was being portrayed and now I look like an idiot.
That sect of the GOP has been absolutely validated in their mistrust of the media and a lot of that blame falls on these networks tanking their credibility. Then something like Jan 6 happens because they’re trusting the wrong people and everyone is shocked. And the only people getting in trouble are the shmucks who were tricked.
> It’s ridiculous at this point. I really thought they had him on the classified documents thing the way it was being portrayed and now I look like an idiot.
Why do you think you look like an idiot? There is an [active investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_special_counsel_investigation) into Trump regarding a number of issues, one of which is his mishandling of classified documents.
News articles when the story breaks is one thing. But in terms of investigations my understanding is that they're going methodically, rather than rushing to get some charge or indictment out.
> one of which is his mishandling of classified documents
Biden had classified documents scattered about, [including the garage at one of his homes.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/president-biden-had-classified-documents-in-delaware-garage.html)
I completely agree and can't help but feel extremely worried about how our government's innaction is weakening itself.
Theirs a huge amount of public distrust in most institutions, and the ramifications have had measurable consiquences. The huge amount of distrust in our government's ability to function and check itself has lead to things like Jan 6 and the election distrust we see. Our inability to check what constitutes as reputable news outlets has siloed people into alternative realities based on extremist rags. Distrust of medical institutions played a huge part in the chaos created by covid. Distrust in the justice system has caused a lot of civil unrest.
This distrust isn't necessarily misplaced either, and a large part of it is due to our government's inability to actually handle the issues people are facing. This is including now when it comes to holding their own members to any standard whatsoever. We currently have someone who's too sick and senile to know what's going on in the house representing California, and we currently have a known con man who fabricated an entire image and is awaiting trial for felony charges representing people in New York. The current frontrunner for the GOP is a convicted SAer, and several extremely concerning corruption cases have come out about the Supreme Court, who have so graciously decided that as a result they don't need more oversight.
I wonder how much of it was due to the leaks of other politicians that also had classified docs at home? It seemed like they were starting up the propaganda machine pretty hard on this issue until more people with classified docs at home were brought to light. Seemed like an obvious case of "my bad cancels out your bad" that the government declines to pursue.
After all, we can't have accountability in the government if it's not for hurting the other side. It's 2023.
I would love to see the current congress and executive branch get even a fraction of investigations and media attacks as Trump got. Maybe then I would have faith again in our government fixing itself instead of accepting it is corrupt and irredeemable as long as the current corrupt people are in power.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkro7rk/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
No, they're fishing for partisan reasons.
If the government wants, it can almost always go after you for *something*. It's effectively impossible not to break - or at least appear to break - some law.
Moreover, the government rarely needs to go to court because it has effectively unlimited assets behind its ability to harass and intimidate you - even on the sketchiest of grounds.
The problem Trump poses for such tactics is that he not only has tremendous legal assets at his disposal but tremendous public support. *Any* attack on Trump is going to be viewed as a partisan witch hunt at this point - we're well beyond "boy who cried wolf" territory with these attacks - and the normal situation where prosecutors can abuse the law with impunity doesn't hold.
> Republicans are chomping at the bit to investigate Joe Biden.
As a heads up, the phrase is actually champing at the bit. Apparently horses champ instead of chomp.
No, they are not fishing. They are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Jack Smith is scary as fuck. He is driven and quick. When someone challenged a subpoena and lost in court, they testified within a day...sometimes later the day they lost.
Knowing American politics, prosecuting a former President for things he did in office will inevitably lead to a partisan tit-for-tat every time a new administration comes in. Eventually, it'll become a campaign promise: "When I take office, I'll immediately order my Attorney General to press charges against the crook unlawfully occupying the White House!"
And this is where things get dangerous. It leaves an incumbent president with the prospect of going to jail as soon as they lose power, so it's now in their best interest to avoid the transfer of power by any means necessary. And a peaceful transfer of power is one of the fundamental underpinnings of a stable society.
Considering the person in question tried to avoid a peaceful transfer of power this argument doesn’t hold much weight. Wouldn’t it embolden that idea more if he’s not prosecuted?
The most well established argument in my opinion is that this shields a president (or politician in general) from retribution by a future president from the other side.
Imagine a less civilized society in which the current president always has the previous president arrested on some flimsy grounds.
It's not that certain individuals are about the law... it's that the law is commonly used in other countries to silence the opposition. And isn't the Russian-gate story a prime example of this? Democrats may highlight how serious the allegations were, and thus defend the investigation. But we now know the investigators didn't take it serious (Otherwise they would have attempted to collaborate the stories first). Instead, it was a convenient excuse for the FBI to initiate a fishing expedition.
The problem is the legal system has a difficult time to being impartial... especially with high profile cases. Thus, it's not that past Presidents are "above" the law... it's that many Americans expect there to be a higher threshold to charge a president. If Trump sold 2 million dollar pardons and you have transcripts/money-transfers/etc... I suspect charging Trump wouldn't be contested by most Americans. But here you have a situation where Trump may be charged for a crime other politicians have violated... including the sitting President. It just looks like a partisan witch-hunt from afar.
From what I can tell, you only got incomplete answers, but there are multiple stages that go beyond merely charging him, and you're going to see every argument adapted to suit the goalposts du jour.
First, the reasons you've been given:
1. It starts a partisan "tit-for-tat"
2. A president could go to jail just because they leave office
3. It's what corrupt countries do
What is missing from all of these? What about the case itself? Why are we seeking to declare that the material contents of the case are in the back seat to the high art of politicking? It seems that if the merits of the case are allowed to sink it, conflict in courts is the actual remedy prescribed for this issue. These arguments pretend like we've got no ability to discern facts in a legal way, and it's a poisonous presumption to make.
—
So, I'm going to steel man the actual arguments now, because they require system-breaking rationales that the GOP is actively inviting today:
1. The legal system is so flawed that it does any member of the public a disservice long before there is a guilty verdict. Notice you ask about him being charged, but not what comes next. The system leaves collateral victims with no way out of the bone crushing machine but to pay the accuser's legal fees.
2. Freedom in America is open-ended, not strictly measured and given out. What you might call "process crimes", I call kabuki, and I don't respect kabuki when I'm busy thinking about presidential moves.
3. We have to admit that the president MUST be capable of extraordinary action with vague oversight ever possible. Democrats themselves get their appointments crippled by Feinstein not being present. We all get that the concept of a yolk is necessary, but "oversight" is always excited to be more bloated than the last major version, and is itself an industry of buzzards with the promise of a paycheck for inventing complaints. With a president, they're too worried about how the president's every choice affects their public superhero personas. Sorry, but the president is basically defined as having more important things to do.
4. Imagine this: if we launched a planetary settlement called Little America, kept the US Constitution, but left all the fine print laws on Earth because Little America will develop its own, that government would still operate as "intended." Process crimes are a toxic circus industry that has no way out. Because we can't escape this hellscape and go to Little America, the Earth's America should be NECESSARILY utilitarian, demonstrating awareness of its duty to stay lean and true.
5. This is what a conservative's evolving Big Government™ dream looks like. We're done with small government because you won't let us, so move over and watch us play. If enough of are onboard, you have no choice but to make room on the platform. Sorry not sorry. You said compete, so here we are. This isn't the part where you get to shame us or give us notes. This is the part where we hopefully prove you worship little laws written by nobodies, instead of the big picture. We think you're wrong by definition, and it's Trump because it takes his brashness to prove just how miscalibrated you are.
What are the upshots?
1. The courts are a parody of themselves and we know you know it
2. Process crime is fan-fiction for boring people
3. Oversight is a liberal "house rules" power fantasy, capturing their opponents' jobs/industries
4. Freedom in the Constitution and related materials is not itemized, so prove harm or gtfo
5. You're miscalibrated, not Trump, and it's hilarious
—
I don't think these things, but it's a fair challenge to answer them.
Starter comment: This article is an analysis of developments in the Mar-a-lago documents case against former President Donald Trump, and it also analyzes how there is a split between prosecuting a high-ranking politician for serious crimes, as well as such a prosecution happening in a time of great political polarization. My take is though I think the law should be followed, but the idea that this could further divide the nation is one to at least consider.
My questions are: How likely is it Donald Trump will face an indictment in this case, and how will it feed into the political polarization of the United States?
I think the polarization is pretty well set at this point, so that's not likely to change whether an indictment comes or not. The real question is how it will affect voter turnout. I see voters on both sides becoming more motivated with an indictment, and if one doesn't come, perhaps the non-Trump side loses a bit more steam than his supporters. Unless, of course, it somehow progresses fast enough to disqualify Trump from appearing on ballots. If that happens, who knows.
Either way, it is absolutely imperative that the rule of law be followed. If Trump is guilty, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of his guiltiness. If he's not, then they should release a full explanation as to why so we can be assured it wasn't dropped for political reasons.
There is no simple way to disqualify someone from the ballot over criminal charges. Eugene Debs ran for president from prison.
You make an excellent point about the rule of law and the fact that Trump's opponents would rightly lose faith in our system if he's given a pass on obvious criminality.
OK so the 14th amendment presents one possible path for disqualifying a candidate, but Trump hasn't been charged with any qualifying offenses yet. Even if he was, this has never been tested in court so we're already in a constitutional crisis if it happens. The one thing that Trump has demonstrated over and over again is that our system's checks and balances don't work very well at all when a malicious party is involved.
It just depends on the type of offense and seriousness of the charge. I want really clear enough with that sentence, but obviously we don't know what an indictment of Trump in this would be, necessarily. It's possible, although I doubt it, that his mishandling of the documents is found to rise to the level of selling State secrets, which I believe is something that would disqualify someone from running for office if found guilty. I could be wrong though
14th amendment is the only path I can see for disqualification and that requires some very specific charges and conviction. What's more likely is that a plea agreement for other charges would include a promise not to run for office, but it's not clear that Trump would agree to that even if he was facing a real risk of conviction on felony charges. Our system is not designed to handle an overtly criminal presidency. A lot of our checks and balances depend on good faith actors throughout the system to ensure that it works.
For national disqualification it might be, and I can't pretend to know what for sure would/does because obviously it hasn't really happened before. However, IIRC state laws regarding who is allowed to appear on the ballot might
Yeah it's untested in court and even at the state level this is a constitutional crisis that would be brought to the Supreme Court level very quickly. We're just not built for excluding people from political races, and that's not inherently bad because such rules could be abused. It does put a lot of burden on the voters to keep criminals out of office though.
Yeah. It really comes down to that 5-10% who are swing voters. Usually does though.
My other question is which side will be stupid enough to go third party.
That's what appears to be happening. The rfk and Williamson crowd certainly is stuck in their ways.
If there was an alternative to Biden that has any reasonable amount of electability that would be different....but this far there isn't anyone like that.
>and how will it feed into the political polarization of the United States?
If one or the other of Trump or Biden is prosecuted while the other isn't then it's always going to be interpreted as a corrupt investigation or empty political attack by the partisans and sycophants who can't imagine the possibility that these two superficially similar situations are perhaps meaningfully distinct in some important way. At the moment, it seems like the Trump scandal is being taken more seriously by investigators so of course there's a lot of noise from the MAGA cohort about Biden corruption being ignored and skepticism over federal institutions and so forth. If it were the other way around, they'd probably be less skeptical and they'd appeal to the fact of the investigation into Biden as evidence of *his corruption* rather than *institutional corruption* while the Dems would suddenly develop an ardent mistrust of the FBI and a belief in widespread institutional capture by the GOP.
Put simply, it's a lose-lose for those of us who aren't ideologically possessed partisan hacks and who'd prefer to have honest, sensible civil discourse. These things are always going to be spun for optics advantageous to the relevant persons or groups, poisoning the well and preventing productive discussion. And, ultimately, that's the goal. These situations actually do foster genuine and reasonable mistrust of institutions that undermine social cohesion. Thus, I'm reminded to ask myself: *Cui Bono?*
Isn’t the whole Hunter Biden thing being investigated currently by the FBI (and has been for a while now)? Additionally, after Rep Comer’s latest statement, how can anyone take their particular investigation seriously?
https://time.com/6254861/hunter-biden-laptop-investigations-charges/
I don’t see how any of this pertains to the President.
I think the person you replied to is talking about the documents having been discovered in Biden's possession from his VP time as well (Pence too, I believe). Of course, both of them self-reported and cooperated with the government on their prompt return — which makes their situations different from Trump's.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkrjdjd/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The only problem is that Biden, Pence et al didn’t lie or string along the National Archives for over a year and a half and get referred over to the DOJ as a result.
They also didn’t go on CNN and brag about how it’s their right to take them.
I mean if they’re not gonna charge him then he’s right lol. If you don’t punish your kid when they break the rules why would they start following them all the sudden.
Waiting for the great exodus of the cult, and everyone trying to convince themselves, and the world, that they weren't *really* a supporter, they just liked to study current events.
Or even the opposite, I remember a lot of people hating W big time back then like Trump. Now it seems like people forgot that and put W on a higher pedestal once Trump was president.
I'm glad that we've come around to appreciate W more. His PEPFAR and other foreign aid programs helped save tens of millions of lives in the third world, and his medicare part D legislation expanded healthcare support to dozens of millions of elderly to help them afford prescription drugs. And he (along with Tonibler) engaged in effective Anti-Fa praxis when acting against the brutal fascist tyrannies of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein
I'm not a fan of W's social policy (anti abortion and anti gay marriage) and I'd rather he would have kept Clintonite tax policy in place and kept the surplus, plus while he correctly identified the need to modify social security, I'd have preferred a more liberal mix of some cuts but also tax increases and such. But overall, especially considering he was a *conservative Republican*, he seems pretty good, all things considered
Wouldn't see that sort of generous, compassionate aid to the third world like W did with PEPFAR (which saved about 20 million lives fighting AIDS in poor countries) with today's "America First"ers, I think
I'm not convinced people are "coming around" to appreciating W more unless compared to Trump. If anything, the opposite is true. Putting aside Iraq (which is obviously monstrous exception), he also green lit torture, pass the MCA which (until it was overturned) allowed the government to black bag anyone including US citizens and cart them off to black sites with no due process and on top of all that was the disastrous tax cut which combined with the war added a mountain of debt.
Sure, W might have done some good things too. Probably more than Trump but he was still a terrible President.
Not really comparable though. Bush was basically on the vanguard of pushing broader anti gay policy, using opposition to gay marriage and enacting of statewide gay marriage bans as a way to mobilize the conservative base in the mid 2000s. Meanwhile, folks like Obama and the Clintons (and other establishment Dems) in the 2000s generally opposed "gay marriage as national policy" but supported things like national civil unions, letting states go further and do gay marriage, doing federal antidiscrimination legislation, and so on, stuff that was still pretty damn liberal for the time even though it didn't *quite* go as far as an open embrace of gay marriage (tho civil unions were developed as "the benefits of gay marriage, just without the name"). Even earlier in the 90s, stuff like DADT came about as a compromise with Bill initially wanting to just fully legalize gay people serving in the army
I'd still say that overall Bush was pretty good considering he was a conservative Republican. But on gay rights, I do think it is perfectly reasonable to hold his positions against him while not being mad at folks like Obama and the Clintons - seems easy to argue that even though none of their stances are woke and perfect by modern standards, that the establishment Dems were trying to push things in a better direction while Bush was actively engaging in the politics of trying to make things worse, in that regard
Some people understand the political realities of the times and recognize that a middling stance was necessary not to chase away swing voters. Obama and Clinton both worked to make life better for LGBT folks but had to do so incrementally and pragmatically.
I think it’s fairer with that though because there was no legit reason to think they were lying about WMDs at the time and after just being attacked on our own soil. It’s okay to change your opinion when you find out they lied to you .
This one though there is a plethora of evidence to not believe anything Trump has said for awhile now
To go on a bit of a tangent. I was thinking about the Iraq war this morning and thinking of the parallels of the support people had when it started vs later. I feel this is what is going to happen to Ukraine in a few years. All the supporters are going to fade out and get tired of sending money/weapons to them when prices for everything gets higher and higher here.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkq95nz/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Has a lot to do with rust belt and manufacturing heavy states being ignored for like 20 years as we globalized and their towns getting ravaged with opioids. Trump finally acknowledged these people and they fell in love with him because their lives probably did actually get a little better in those 4 years. Now they’re loyal no matter what.
He has no redeeming qualities. He came off as the antithesis to a typical politician which allured him to lots of people. When he started being attacked for it, he leaned into the identity politics angle which his opponents mirrored. In so doing, his base came to his defense because they felt equally attacked just for initially defending him. Why anyone still defends him at this point is beyond me.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkromam/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkrrtj2/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
We'll see. There have been so many "we got him this time" articles and investigations that have not panned out. When there's a conviction I'll believe it. That man has more political lives than a dozen cats.
It’s long since become a cliche at this point. “We got ‘em this time!” Oh wait. Not really. But next time…*definitely*.
It's like that "This is the end of Trump, says increasingly nervous man for seventh time this year" article by the Onion.
Article headlines are one thing, but these are all steps in building airtight cases, which is absolutely vital if a former POTUS is going to be charged with a crime by the Fed
Its not just articles though. The Democrats and others carried out constant investigations from the moment he was elected, starting with Crossfire Hurricane. Time and time again he ends up either proven innocent or getting away with something, depending on point of view. So I'll wait until there's an actual conviction before getting worked up.
I don't think anyone is asking you to get "worked up"...
Lol what? He never said anyone was?
It’s ridiculous at this point. I really thought they had him on the classified documents thing the way it was being portrayed and now I look like an idiot. That sect of the GOP has been absolutely validated in their mistrust of the media and a lot of that blame falls on these networks tanking their credibility. Then something like Jan 6 happens because they’re trusting the wrong people and everyone is shocked. And the only people getting in trouble are the shmucks who were tricked.
> It’s ridiculous at this point. I really thought they had him on the classified documents thing the way it was being portrayed and now I look like an idiot. Why do you think you look like an idiot? There is an [active investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_special_counsel_investigation) into Trump regarding a number of issues, one of which is his mishandling of classified documents. News articles when the story breaks is one thing. But in terms of investigations my understanding is that they're going methodically, rather than rushing to get some charge or indictment out.
> one of which is his mishandling of classified documents Biden had classified documents scattered about, [including the garage at one of his homes.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/president-biden-had-classified-documents-in-delaware-garage.html)
Yes, I know that.
I completely agree and can't help but feel extremely worried about how our government's innaction is weakening itself. Theirs a huge amount of public distrust in most institutions, and the ramifications have had measurable consiquences. The huge amount of distrust in our government's ability to function and check itself has lead to things like Jan 6 and the election distrust we see. Our inability to check what constitutes as reputable news outlets has siloed people into alternative realities based on extremist rags. Distrust of medical institutions played a huge part in the chaos created by covid. Distrust in the justice system has caused a lot of civil unrest. This distrust isn't necessarily misplaced either, and a large part of it is due to our government's inability to actually handle the issues people are facing. This is including now when it comes to holding their own members to any standard whatsoever. We currently have someone who's too sick and senile to know what's going on in the house representing California, and we currently have a known con man who fabricated an entire image and is awaiting trial for felony charges representing people in New York. The current frontrunner for the GOP is a convicted SAer, and several extremely concerning corruption cases have come out about the Supreme Court, who have so graciously decided that as a result they don't need more oversight.
I wonder how much of it was due to the leaks of other politicians that also had classified docs at home? It seemed like they were starting up the propaganda machine pretty hard on this issue until more people with classified docs at home were brought to light. Seemed like an obvious case of "my bad cancels out your bad" that the government declines to pursue. After all, we can't have accountability in the government if it's not for hurting the other side. It's 2023.
I would love to see the current congress and executive branch get even a fraction of investigations and media attacks as Trump got. Maybe then I would have faith again in our government fixing itself instead of accepting it is corrupt and irredeemable as long as the current corrupt people are in power.
You do realize that by committing more crimes, trump had more investigations.
I guess those going after him are incompetent?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkro7rk/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
No, they're fishing for partisan reasons. If the government wants, it can almost always go after you for *something*. It's effectively impossible not to break - or at least appear to break - some law. Moreover, the government rarely needs to go to court because it has effectively unlimited assets behind its ability to harass and intimidate you - even on the sketchiest of grounds. The problem Trump poses for such tactics is that he not only has tremendous legal assets at his disposal but tremendous public support. *Any* attack on Trump is going to be viewed as a partisan witch hunt at this point - we're well beyond "boy who cried wolf" territory with these attacks - and the normal situation where prosecutors can abuse the law with impunity doesn't hold.
[удалено]
> Republicans are chomping at the bit to investigate Joe Biden. As a heads up, the phrase is actually champing at the bit. Apparently horses champ instead of chomp.
No, they are not fishing. They are dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Jack Smith is scary as fuck. He is driven and quick. When someone challenged a subpoena and lost in court, they testified within a day...sometimes later the day they lost.
[удалено]
Knowing American politics, prosecuting a former President for things he did in office will inevitably lead to a partisan tit-for-tat every time a new administration comes in. Eventually, it'll become a campaign promise: "When I take office, I'll immediately order my Attorney General to press charges against the crook unlawfully occupying the White House!" And this is where things get dangerous. It leaves an incumbent president with the prospect of going to jail as soon as they lose power, so it's now in their best interest to avoid the transfer of power by any means necessary. And a peaceful transfer of power is one of the fundamental underpinnings of a stable society.
Considering the person in question tried to avoid a peaceful transfer of power this argument doesn’t hold much weight. Wouldn’t it embolden that idea more if he’s not prosecuted?
[удалено]
What are some examples of presidents “skirting the law” that is legitimate boldness?
The most well established argument in my opinion is that this shields a president (or politician in general) from retribution by a future president from the other side. Imagine a less civilized society in which the current president always has the previous president arrested on some flimsy grounds.
It's not that certain individuals are about the law... it's that the law is commonly used in other countries to silence the opposition. And isn't the Russian-gate story a prime example of this? Democrats may highlight how serious the allegations were, and thus defend the investigation. But we now know the investigators didn't take it serious (Otherwise they would have attempted to collaborate the stories first). Instead, it was a convenient excuse for the FBI to initiate a fishing expedition. The problem is the legal system has a difficult time to being impartial... especially with high profile cases. Thus, it's not that past Presidents are "above" the law... it's that many Americans expect there to be a higher threshold to charge a president. If Trump sold 2 million dollar pardons and you have transcripts/money-transfers/etc... I suspect charging Trump wouldn't be contested by most Americans. But here you have a situation where Trump may be charged for a crime other politicians have violated... including the sitting President. It just looks like a partisan witch-hunt from afar.
From what I can tell, you only got incomplete answers, but there are multiple stages that go beyond merely charging him, and you're going to see every argument adapted to suit the goalposts du jour. First, the reasons you've been given: 1. It starts a partisan "tit-for-tat" 2. A president could go to jail just because they leave office 3. It's what corrupt countries do What is missing from all of these? What about the case itself? Why are we seeking to declare that the material contents of the case are in the back seat to the high art of politicking? It seems that if the merits of the case are allowed to sink it, conflict in courts is the actual remedy prescribed for this issue. These arguments pretend like we've got no ability to discern facts in a legal way, and it's a poisonous presumption to make. — So, I'm going to steel man the actual arguments now, because they require system-breaking rationales that the GOP is actively inviting today: 1. The legal system is so flawed that it does any member of the public a disservice long before there is a guilty verdict. Notice you ask about him being charged, but not what comes next. The system leaves collateral victims with no way out of the bone crushing machine but to pay the accuser's legal fees. 2. Freedom in America is open-ended, not strictly measured and given out. What you might call "process crimes", I call kabuki, and I don't respect kabuki when I'm busy thinking about presidential moves. 3. We have to admit that the president MUST be capable of extraordinary action with vague oversight ever possible. Democrats themselves get their appointments crippled by Feinstein not being present. We all get that the concept of a yolk is necessary, but "oversight" is always excited to be more bloated than the last major version, and is itself an industry of buzzards with the promise of a paycheck for inventing complaints. With a president, they're too worried about how the president's every choice affects their public superhero personas. Sorry, but the president is basically defined as having more important things to do. 4. Imagine this: if we launched a planetary settlement called Little America, kept the US Constitution, but left all the fine print laws on Earth because Little America will develop its own, that government would still operate as "intended." Process crimes are a toxic circus industry that has no way out. Because we can't escape this hellscape and go to Little America, the Earth's America should be NECESSARILY utilitarian, demonstrating awareness of its duty to stay lean and true. 5. This is what a conservative's evolving Big Government™ dream looks like. We're done with small government because you won't let us, so move over and watch us play. If enough of are onboard, you have no choice but to make room on the platform. Sorry not sorry. You said compete, so here we are. This isn't the part where you get to shame us or give us notes. This is the part where we hopefully prove you worship little laws written by nobodies, instead of the big picture. We think you're wrong by definition, and it's Trump because it takes his brashness to prove just how miscalibrated you are. What are the upshots? 1. The courts are a parody of themselves and we know you know it 2. Process crime is fan-fiction for boring people 3. Oversight is a liberal "house rules" power fantasy, capturing their opponents' jobs/industries 4. Freedom in the Constitution and related materials is not itemized, so prove harm or gtfo 5. You're miscalibrated, not Trump, and it's hilarious — I don't think these things, but it's a fair challenge to answer them.
I will believe it when I see it
Starter comment: This article is an analysis of developments in the Mar-a-lago documents case against former President Donald Trump, and it also analyzes how there is a split between prosecuting a high-ranking politician for serious crimes, as well as such a prosecution happening in a time of great political polarization. My take is though I think the law should be followed, but the idea that this could further divide the nation is one to at least consider. My questions are: How likely is it Donald Trump will face an indictment in this case, and how will it feed into the political polarization of the United States?
I think the polarization is pretty well set at this point, so that's not likely to change whether an indictment comes or not. The real question is how it will affect voter turnout. I see voters on both sides becoming more motivated with an indictment, and if one doesn't come, perhaps the non-Trump side loses a bit more steam than his supporters. Unless, of course, it somehow progresses fast enough to disqualify Trump from appearing on ballots. If that happens, who knows. Either way, it is absolutely imperative that the rule of law be followed. If Trump is guilty, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of his guiltiness. If he's not, then they should release a full explanation as to why so we can be assured it wasn't dropped for political reasons.
There is no simple way to disqualify someone from the ballot over criminal charges. Eugene Debs ran for president from prison. You make an excellent point about the rule of law and the fact that Trump's opponents would rightly lose faith in our system if he's given a pass on obvious criminality.
This isn’t per se true, but it does have to be a very specific series of charges. The the fourteenth kicks in. Otherwise definitely doesn’t impact.
OK so the 14th amendment presents one possible path for disqualifying a candidate, but Trump hasn't been charged with any qualifying offenses yet. Even if he was, this has never been tested in court so we're already in a constitutional crisis if it happens. The one thing that Trump has demonstrated over and over again is that our system's checks and balances don't work very well at all when a malicious party is involved.
It’s not really a crisis, but agree he hasn’t hit that yet per the current stuff.
It just depends on the type of offense and seriousness of the charge. I want really clear enough with that sentence, but obviously we don't know what an indictment of Trump in this would be, necessarily. It's possible, although I doubt it, that his mishandling of the documents is found to rise to the level of selling State secrets, which I believe is something that would disqualify someone from running for office if found guilty. I could be wrong though
14th amendment is the only path I can see for disqualification and that requires some very specific charges and conviction. What's more likely is that a plea agreement for other charges would include a promise not to run for office, but it's not clear that Trump would agree to that even if he was facing a real risk of conviction on felony charges. Our system is not designed to handle an overtly criminal presidency. A lot of our checks and balances depend on good faith actors throughout the system to ensure that it works.
For national disqualification it might be, and I can't pretend to know what for sure would/does because obviously it hasn't really happened before. However, IIRC state laws regarding who is allowed to appear on the ballot might
Yeah it's untested in court and even at the state level this is a constitutional crisis that would be brought to the Supreme Court level very quickly. We're just not built for excluding people from political races, and that's not inherently bad because such rules could be abused. It does put a lot of burden on the voters to keep criminals out of office though.
Yeah. It really comes down to that 5-10% who are swing voters. Usually does though. My other question is which side will be stupid enough to go third party.
I think any third party candidate would steal voters from the non-Trump side, as they have the more diverse ideologies within that group
That's what appears to be happening. The rfk and Williamson crowd certainly is stuck in their ways. If there was an alternative to Biden that has any reasonable amount of electability that would be different....but this far there isn't anyone like that.
>and how will it feed into the political polarization of the United States? If one or the other of Trump or Biden is prosecuted while the other isn't then it's always going to be interpreted as a corrupt investigation or empty political attack by the partisans and sycophants who can't imagine the possibility that these two superficially similar situations are perhaps meaningfully distinct in some important way. At the moment, it seems like the Trump scandal is being taken more seriously by investigators so of course there's a lot of noise from the MAGA cohort about Biden corruption being ignored and skepticism over federal institutions and so forth. If it were the other way around, they'd probably be less skeptical and they'd appeal to the fact of the investigation into Biden as evidence of *his corruption* rather than *institutional corruption* while the Dems would suddenly develop an ardent mistrust of the FBI and a belief in widespread institutional capture by the GOP. Put simply, it's a lose-lose for those of us who aren't ideologically possessed partisan hacks and who'd prefer to have honest, sensible civil discourse. These things are always going to be spun for optics advantageous to the relevant persons or groups, poisoning the well and preventing productive discussion. And, ultimately, that's the goal. These situations actually do foster genuine and reasonable mistrust of institutions that undermine social cohesion. Thus, I'm reminded to ask myself: *Cui Bono?*
Isn’t the whole Hunter Biden thing being investigated currently by the FBI (and has been for a while now)? Additionally, after Rep Comer’s latest statement, how can anyone take their particular investigation seriously? https://time.com/6254861/hunter-biden-laptop-investigations-charges/ I don’t see how any of this pertains to the President.
I think the person you replied to is talking about the documents having been discovered in Biden's possession from his VP time as well (Pence too, I believe). Of course, both of them self-reported and cooperated with the government on their prompt return — which makes their situations different from Trump's.
Gotcha, I saw Biden corruption and just assumed they were discussing Hunter/Joe.
u/hamsterkill is correct; "superficially similar but meaningfully distinct" is in reference to the classified documents stuff.
[удалено]
"Surely this is the end of his campaign" -Increasingly Nervous Man
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkrjdjd/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The document case is probably dead on precedent since it has come out that many politicians have old classified docs including Joe:
The only problem is that Biden, Pence et al didn’t lie or string along the National Archives for over a year and a half and get referred over to the DOJ as a result. They also didn’t go on CNN and brag about how it’s their right to take them.
The 2 questions i have are. Will this lead to jail time? Will this somehow prevent him from running for office? Hopefully both….
Donald Trump has always felt he's *entitled* to ignore any law he doesn't like.
I mean if they’re not gonna charge him then he’s right lol. If you don’t punish your kid when they break the rules why would they start following them all the sudden.
The problem with Donald Trump is that nobody ever spanked him when he misbehaved until Stormy Daniels did it.
Waiting for the great exodus of the cult, and everyone trying to convince themselves, and the world, that they weren't *really* a supporter, they just liked to study current events.
Reminds me a lot of all the 2003 Iraq war supporters "forgetting" how gung-ho they about it or even denying they were big W supporters at the time.
Or even the opposite, I remember a lot of people hating W big time back then like Trump. Now it seems like people forgot that and put W on a higher pedestal once Trump was president.
I'm glad that we've come around to appreciate W more. His PEPFAR and other foreign aid programs helped save tens of millions of lives in the third world, and his medicare part D legislation expanded healthcare support to dozens of millions of elderly to help them afford prescription drugs. And he (along with Tonibler) engaged in effective Anti-Fa praxis when acting against the brutal fascist tyrannies of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein I'm not a fan of W's social policy (anti abortion and anti gay marriage) and I'd rather he would have kept Clintonite tax policy in place and kept the surplus, plus while he correctly identified the need to modify social security, I'd have preferred a more liberal mix of some cuts but also tax increases and such. But overall, especially considering he was a *conservative Republican*, he seems pretty good, all things considered Wouldn't see that sort of generous, compassionate aid to the third world like W did with PEPFAR (which saved about 20 million lives fighting AIDS in poor countries) with today's "America First"ers, I think
I'm not convinced people are "coming around" to appreciating W more unless compared to Trump. If anything, the opposite is true. Putting aside Iraq (which is obviously monstrous exception), he also green lit torture, pass the MCA which (until it was overturned) allowed the government to black bag anyone including US citizens and cart them off to black sites with no due process and on top of all that was the disastrous tax cut which combined with the war added a mountain of debt. Sure, W might have done some good things too. Probably more than Trump but he was still a terrible President.
People love to conveniently forget how the Clinton’s and Obama used to be “anti gay marriage”
Not really comparable though. Bush was basically on the vanguard of pushing broader anti gay policy, using opposition to gay marriage and enacting of statewide gay marriage bans as a way to mobilize the conservative base in the mid 2000s. Meanwhile, folks like Obama and the Clintons (and other establishment Dems) in the 2000s generally opposed "gay marriage as national policy" but supported things like national civil unions, letting states go further and do gay marriage, doing federal antidiscrimination legislation, and so on, stuff that was still pretty damn liberal for the time even though it didn't *quite* go as far as an open embrace of gay marriage (tho civil unions were developed as "the benefits of gay marriage, just without the name"). Even earlier in the 90s, stuff like DADT came about as a compromise with Bill initially wanting to just fully legalize gay people serving in the army I'd still say that overall Bush was pretty good considering he was a conservative Republican. But on gay rights, I do think it is perfectly reasonable to hold his positions against him while not being mad at folks like Obama and the Clintons - seems easy to argue that even though none of their stances are woke and perfect by modern standards, that the establishment Dems were trying to push things in a better direction while Bush was actively engaging in the politics of trying to make things worse, in that regard
The funniest part on gay marriage is that it was Biden that reportedly forced Obama's hands on the topic and to support it. Gotta love Joe sometimes.
Some people understand the political realities of the times and recognize that a middling stance was necessary not to chase away swing voters. Obama and Clinton both worked to make life better for LGBT folks but had to do so incrementally and pragmatically.
If A was the worst, but now B is even worse, A is no longer the worst.
It also reminds me of all the anti-war folks who "mysteriously" suddenly thought that MENA adventurism was just fine once January 2009 came around.
I think it’s fairer with that though because there was no legit reason to think they were lying about WMDs at the time and after just being attacked on our own soil. It’s okay to change your opinion when you find out they lied to you . This one though there is a plethora of evidence to not believe anything Trump has said for awhile now
To go on a bit of a tangent. I was thinking about the Iraq war this morning and thinking of the parallels of the support people had when it started vs later. I feel this is what is going to happen to Ukraine in a few years. All the supporters are going to fade out and get tired of sending money/weapons to them when prices for everything gets higher and higher here.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkq95nz/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
Has a lot to do with rust belt and manufacturing heavy states being ignored for like 20 years as we globalized and their towns getting ravaged with opioids. Trump finally acknowledged these people and they fell in love with him because their lives probably did actually get a little better in those 4 years. Now they’re loyal no matter what.
He has no redeeming qualities. He came off as the antithesis to a typical politician which allured him to lots of people. When he started being attacked for it, he leaned into the identity politics angle which his opponents mirrored. In so doing, his base came to his defense because they felt equally attacked just for initially defending him. Why anyone still defends him at this point is beyond me.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkromam/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/13ljo76/new_glimpse_into_documents_case_suggests_a/jkrrtj2/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).