Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 2,964
- 2,351
- 1,928
Last week, responding to Damon Linker’s persuasive arguments about the dangers of criminally prosecuting Trump, I ventured that we might have to sacrifice justice on the altar of prudence. The column provoked a fierce backlash, and while it may seem odd to say this, I’m in sympathy with my critics, and offer these reflections in all modesty. I may be wrong. Perhaps the right path is to pursue justice “though the Heavens fall.” But we cannot pretend that there is no risk to this path. In fact, the stakes could not be higher—the stability of our society—so it’s worth considering all of the possible outcomes before barreling forward.
The prosecute-and-be-damned party believes fervently that any hesitation to hold Trump criminally liable for his crimes amounts to appeasement and cowardly submission to what Michelle Goldberg calls “the insurrectionists’ veto.” Acknowledging that some on the right are “heavily armed” and speaking “lustily of civil war,” she objects that “The far right is constantly threatening violence if it doesn’t get its way. Does anyone truly believe that giving in to its blackmail will make it less aggressive?”
It’s a great point. The very worst part about refraining from prosecuting Trump is that it would seem to be a victory for bullying and intimidation. I concede that, and it burns. When Trump riles up his mobs and then threatens to unleash them on his opponents, one’s natural reaction is unprintable (by me anyway). It is precisely when he acts like a Mafia don or a fascist that the urge to slap him down with every available weapon is strongest.
Try Trump at the Ballot Box, Not in Court
Trials are too uncertain to risk the republic.www.thebulwark.com
One can hardly imagine a greater indictment of the POT than essentially saying, "if the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt is not enough to secure a conviction, or even if it is, prosecution is a dangerous endeavor because it would become a circus-like spectacle. Don would take advantage of it in ways that would be damaging to the republic and cause his cult to rally behind him." IOW, The Following is too Crazy to risk it. So let the criminal go free?
The rebuttal. To Charge or Not to Charge
The man is a threat to US National Security, and a demagogue, and history has shown how clever demagogues destroy their country, though insidiously popular at the outset. No demagogue should ever be allowed to hold any office of public trust. Democrats will do everything in our power, via legal means, to keep this man from running, and out of office, for the good of the country. We believe glossing over his many crimes would be, in the long run, worse that risking his becoming emboldened if he is prosecuted and the prosecutors lose, which is a distinct possibility. The risk MUST be taken. You wouldn't put a referendum vote on the ballot to remove the crime of murder from the code book, would you? There are some things that the public should not be allowed to vote on. After all, they gave Palestine in Gaza the vote, and who did they vote for? Hamas. I rest my case. This man must be indicted, and if the facts prove it, convicted and put away. I believe the facts are there, in spades, for his conviction.
Last edited:
