What's Really Stopping a Trump Prosecution?

[Nevilledog]

https://www.nycsouthpaw.com/p/whats-really-stopping-a-trump-prosecution



On Saturday, in an apparent effort to prick the momentum generated by the January 6th Committee’s recent public hearings, the New York Times published a story headlined “Despite Growing Evidence, a Prosecution of Trump Would Face Challenges.”

The headline, of course, is substantially true. Any prosecution of a powerful, well-resourced person for a serious crime faces challenges, no matter the strength of the evidence arrayed against them, and those challenges grow geometrically when the person in question is a former president who sits at the top of a fanatical mass movement that’s willing to pursue its goals without ethical or legal restraints and that elevates personal fealty to him over adherence to factual reality or a set of pre-agreed rules. Nevertheless, the story is misbegotten, and I think it’s important to understand why.

The NYT lede frames an implicit argument that’s carried through the piece:

As new questions swirled this past week about former President Donald J. Trump’s potential criminal exposure for seeking to overturn the 2020 election, Mr. Trump issued a rambling 12-page statement.

It contained his usual mix of outlandish claims, hyperbole and outright falsehoods, but also something that Trump allies and legal experts said was notable and different: the beginnings of a legal defense.

On nearly every page, Mr. Trump gave explanations for why he was convinced that the 2020 election had been stolen from him and why he was well within his rights to challenge the results by any means available.

The argument, if I’m reading it right, is that Trump’s feelings of justification for acting as he did in the aftermath of the 2020 election (his “explanations for why he was convinced that the 2020 election had been stolen from him and why he was well within his rights to challenge the results by any means available”) constitutes the “beginnings of a legal defense.” It doesn’t, but the problems in the piece are worse than that.

*snip*

[LuckyCharms]

1. K&R. n/t

[Nevilledog]

2. ...

[LuckyCharms]

3. You're one of my favorite people.

Thanks for posting this.

[Nevilledog]

5. And you know you're a favorite of mine.

[in2herbs]

4. Maybe Garland is delaying any prosecution the DOJ can bring bc he's waiting

for Biden to expand the court. Right now, without an expansion, the USSC would dismiss all claims.

[AntiFascist]

6. Well resourced?? You've got to be kidding, Trump must have the worst legal resources...

the real problem is the possibility of causing widespread social unrest (not likely considering that the extremists are actually a smaller minority).

The other problem is that Merrick Garland, a Federalist btw, wants to appear as non-partisan as possible, which in and of itself, seems to be taking a partisan stance....SINCE the criminals in this case are Republican!

[tanyev]

7. He was well within his rights to challenge the results by legal means.

And when all of those failed miserably, he moved on to illegal means.

[Mr. Ected]

8. Officer, I have a feeling I wasn't exceeding the speed limit just now. "Tell it to the judge"

Your Honor, I don't think I was speeding, even if the officer disagrees, even if his equipment was functioning properly, even if it was properly calibrated, even if there were several eyewitnesses that testified.

I don't feel that your laws work for me.

"Case dismissed".

--said no judge, ever.

[Novara]

9. How does anybody know that a prosecution is being stopped?

I mean, why don't we rephrase that? No one knows that he won't be prosecuted.

Why does our side consistently phrase things so stupidly? This phrasing makes people discouraged, thinking there won't be a prosecution, when nothing of the sort has been officially stated.

Maybe the headline should be "Potential Issues With a Trump Prosecution." Ya think?