My take on indicting tfg,

[grumpyduck]

as much as I'd love to see it happen, is that DOJ and others might be afraid of setting a precedent. Granted there's probably lots of airtight proof that he broke laws while in office, but, still, they may be afraid that repukes and others might jump on the chance to indict a real president via a corrupt AG or someone else.

I'd say damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead.

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Not Indicting Sets A Precedent

It sets the precedent that a President is ALWAYS ABOVE THE LAW.

I don't expect him or any of his buddies to be indicted.

I Do expect that someday in the future, a President will get away with something even worse.

AMERICA!!

[MOMFUDSKI]

2. A precedent Must Be Set.

Should've happened with Nixon and maybe this shit would've never been attempted. Corrupt is corrupt and the law applies to ALL. If not, our democracy is just a fantasy.

[Rebl2]

18. I agree

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Like you say, the precedent would have been set back then.

[Justice matters.]

20. Nixon could not be prosecuted because Ford issued a blanket (or preemptive) pardon.

Both Republicans. Corrupt.

[Rebl2]

21. Correct

Just saying he should have been prosecuted, but Ford put an end to that possibility unfortunately.

[MiniMe]

24. Reagan should have been held accountable too

Iran Countra was a big deal.

[gldstwmn]

25. I agree. There were far more crimes committed in Iran Contra.

[2naSalit]

19. Absolutely!

[wyn borkins]

3. And I Would Suggest

Forget 'Full Speed Ahead'

And order up 'Ramming Speed'

[grumpyduck]

9. Works for me.

[Alpeduez21]

4. People need to stop fearing what repukes will do

they have shown themselves to be incapable of reigning in their most vile thoughts. If it's not understood they will do ANYTHING to get and hold power then I don't know how to convince anyone. The use of power is what will stop repukes it's all they understand. Playing nice or even restrained with them is hurtful in the long run.

[PortTack]

10. Exactly..just like putin. All the experts that know and understand him say the only thing he

Understands is brute force. THIS….is no different.

In fact I will venture to further say, if he’s not stopped he and the gqp will be further emboldened

[Beastly Boy]

5. Setting a precedent may be a good thing. Indicting and failing to convict would be the real disaster

[ecstatic]

6. so in other words, like repugs, democrats are worried about keeping their own jobs?

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2022, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

And they're willing to sacrifice the entire country and democracy to protect their own jobs (even though it's not guaranteed rethugs won't prosecute them anyway?).

And what about the precedent of attempting a coup with no repercussions? Does that precedent not matter?

[grumpyduck]

8. I didn't say that.

All I said was that maybe that's what they're thinking. IOW, a wild-ass guess on my part.

[onecaliberal]

7. It is a good precedent to lock up a criminal POTUS.

Either no one is against the law, or they are.

[delisen]

11. We've done everything we can to not engage, no place else to retreat

We have to engage and win

[Samrob]

12. Georgia AG ain't playin' Tough woman. We need more like her. nt

[grumpyduck]

13. Yes we do. Lots more.

Do the job or get the hell out of office.

[Justice]

14. I say follow every lead, indict everyone where there is evidence to do so -

whether we get Trump in the end is likely dependent in part on whether others turn on him.

If lots of people who aided and abetted Trump are convicted of their crimes, in the future, others may think twice about being criminally loyal to another corrupt President.

[FakeNoose]

15. The precedent was sent when Nixon got away

Now we're undoing past mistakes, and setting NEW precedents. It's way harder now than it would have been in 1975.

[BigmanPigman]

16. DOJ must prosecute or they'll succeed next time.

All of them must be held accountable.

[duckworth969]

17. Chump should be indicted. But I read this today...

This opinion piece by Jamelle Bouie is a great read.

Not specifically about Trump indictment but made same excellent points about what could be done by Congress to keep him and his henchmen from ever being elected again, force the resignations of all involved in the conspiracy, etc.

Here’s a sample:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.“

[italics mine]

At the very least, this removes Chump, over a hundred Repubics and their toadies from office now and forever.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/dobbs-roe-supreme-court.html

No paywall
https://archive.ph/7ap1q

[former9thward]

23. It does not remove anybody.

For that section to be in effect would require a conviction of a charge of insurrection. Nobody has been charged with that.

[EndlessWire]

22. Yes, he has to be indicted.

They are setting up to do it again. If not the Midterms, then 2024. Doing nothing just says, oh, go ahead, we don't care.

Organizing a coup, inciting a riot in support thereof, and hoping your VP or the Speaker gets hung, is heinous. If anything deserves a prosecution, this is it. If we don't see Trump indicted for this, then, why bother with anything else?

This, maybe it will destabilize the government, is sheer nonsense. And, why isn't any consideration of how the rest of us feel about our institutions being corrupted given to this matter? Garland better not let us down. Get the ducks lined up and start the process. We are running out of time.

GOTV!