General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU Poll: Is appointing a special prosecutor a good or bad thing?
45 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Good | |
22 (49%) |
|
Bad | |
13 (29%) |
|
Not sure at this time | |
8 (18%) |
|
Other | |
2 (4%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
LeftInTX
(29,559 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)In general, probably a good thing. But part of me is concerned its more delays and looking like doing something while not actually indicting Trump or really holding him to account. Theres more than enough to charge him. Just do it already.
Frasier Balzov
(3,444 posts)It should be as routine as what the most humble among us can be expected receive.
True Dough
(19,751 posts)in 6 months.
relayerbob
(6,939 posts)This guy is good. He's very experienced in this sort of espionage/treason thing. He's free of the political baggage that Garland has, especially whe put between two Presidential candidates. The investigation isn't stopping, it's just getting carried on with MORE intensity and focus. None of this is unanticipated, they were just waiting for Trump to announce (and he did so to delay and burder the DoJ), the new team may already be nearly up to speed with the investigation. Bear in mind the effects of Trump's attempt to use the "Special Master", resulted in his ass being handed to him on a platter. This new gambit,IMO, actually increases the odds he's going to go to jail.
And, for the record, being indicted is irrelevant in Trump's world. MAGA won't care in the least, to the contrary, it will be a positive. He MUST be convicted, if indicted, an acquittal will doom all of us to Trump as President for life.
former9thward
(33,336 posts)Where are you getting that from?
Pluvious
(4,723 posts)former9thward
(33,336 posts)War crimes are far different.
iemanja
(54,435 posts)The reason for the special prosecutor statute is to avoid a conflict of interest. What conflict of interest does Garland have over this investigation. For the decision to be appropriate, there needs to be one.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,475 posts)Seriously, no snark.
Garland is investigating someone who could possibly be his boss in 2 years and 2 months - that does have ethical implications.
Republicans are going to scream witch hunt regardless, but that doesnt mean the Biden Administration shouldnt act ethically.
Garland is already treading in uncharted territory and hes setting precedent for the future - it NEEDS to be done right.
iemanja
(54,435 posts)I don't share your view that a Democratic-appointed AJ can't prosecute Trump or other Republican politicians. As was pointed out on Chris Hayes tonight, Garland still has oversight over Smith. Garland will still make the decision about whether to prosecute. Having a SP doesn't change that.
SomedayKindaLove
(979 posts)To get the last three outs.
Solly Mack
(92,226 posts)mvd
(65,390 posts)Waiting to see.
Emile
(28,416 posts)lees1975
(5,550 posts)I'm not sure. No matter the outcome, at this point, Trump has been treated with far more deference than an ordinary citizen would be. No one else would have had this kind of freedom.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)The new year. But trump won't go to prison on that one.
It's the Jan 6 case that's the important one.