What I think should happen with a Trump prosecution?

[kentuck]

He should be treated like any other citizen. Being the Leader of a Cult does not qualify for special treatment.

It should be taken to a jury. If the charges cannot be proven, then he will walk.

If they can be proven, he should be sentenced like any other citizen.

If the next President would wish to pardon him, then he/she would pay the political price. Or they may think there is no political price?

In my opinion, Jack Smith should continue to gather the evidence, but hopefully he will soon file charges against the former Criminal-in-Chief.

[gab13by13]

1. Trump gets special treatment because he was president.

Merrick Garland is an institutionalist, he takes into consideration damaging the institution. I have proof; Barr defended Trump (the office) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. Barr was saying that slandering someone is an official duty of the president. When Garland took over he was not locked in to defending Trump (the office) but he did. A district court ruled against Garland and now the decision is sitting at the Appeals court. If the Appeals court rules in favor of Garland then DOJ will take Trump's place at the E. Jean Carroll trial as the defendant.

[fightforfreedom]

3. If Garland is an institutionalist he would not treat any one special.

Garland follows the law period. That's how you protect the institution. I have never seen him give anyone special treatment. You post contradicts itself.

You constantly attack Garland for wrong doing and then say he is an institutionalist?

[gab13by13]

7. First of all, I say that Garland is an institutionalist because

Garland says he is one. If you have other sources that state otherwise it would be appreciated. You have a misconception of what an institutionalist is. Garland may have evidence to indict someone, a slam dunk case, but if he feels that an indictment and conviction would damage our institutions then he will not indict. I have no problem with his considerations of what an indictment of Trump would create.

I gave a perfect example of Garland's institutionalism when he decided to defend Trump (the office of the president) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. Garland took the position that slandering someone is an official duty of the president, that my friend is an extreme example of an institutionalist seeing as a District court has since ruled that slandering someone is not an official duty of the president.

I do not know what to say to better explain this to you if you do not understand the E. Jean example.

[democrank]

2. I'd like someone to explain to me

why a president, former or current, is above the law when nobody is supposed to be above the law. It seems that simple.Trump is a full-blown criminal. Way past time to demand accountability.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes. But what I would predict to be NECESSARY:

[MiHale]

5. There is a scavenger hunt for accountability...

A hunt with only one clue…

It’s under a pile of decaying leaves in the corner next to the fence on an abandoned tennis court in a sparsely populated backwater town somewhere in America.

Let’s go!

[fightforfreedom]

6. All the investigations are moving full speed ahead. Many are expanding.

More investigations are being started. Trump is being investigated like any other citizen. Prosecuting any former president is Un-precedented and difficult. While an ex-president is a civilian like everyone one else, they are not treated as just an average civilian. They shouldn't be, they are ex-presidents.

If Smith, Garland, Willis, find enough evidence that can be proven in court to indict Trump, they will. That doesn't mean it will be an easy decision. There are many factors they have to consider that they don't have to consider when prosecuting the average Joe.

For example, If the FBI raided your home or my home and found secret documents, we would be arrested on the spot. That did not happen with trump because he is an ex-president. Something we don't know about stopped them from arresting Trump on the spot. That's just the way it is. That doesn't mean Trump will not be indicted for the secret documents at some point.

[gab13by13]

8. Let's call a spade a spade,

If Garland indicts Trump, Trump will unleash the fury of his unwashed Magats. There will be death threats and actual physical violence. Fani Willis had to provide herself with extra security and she bought her prosecutors bullet proof vests. Not to mention that GYM Jordan is going to subpoena Garland and dozens more all designed to intimidate them.

Jack Smith will load the gun but Merrick Garland has to pull the trigger on indictments.

The Iowa caucus is Jan.23rd, 2024. Trump is getting ready to go back on Twitter and hit the campaign trail. If you cannot see that the insurrection is growing since 1/6/2021 then you haven't been paying attention.

Take 2 hours out of your day and watch Nicolle Wallace, she cuts through the crap.

In the meantime, Trump's strategy is winning; delay, delay, delay. haven't people like me been patient enough? Bob Mueller gets bashed here, but in less time than DOJ, Mueller indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies;

George Popadopoulas
Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Michael Flynn
Richard Pinedo
Alex van der Zwaan
Konstantin Kilimnik
Michael Cohen
Roger Stone
Sam Patten
13 Russian nationals
3 Russian companies.

[fightforfreedom]

9. Garland, Smith, Willis, are not afraid of Trump. Of course they have to take extra precautions.

Their decisions will not be based on fear. Their decisions will be based on is there enough evidence to convict a former president in a court of law. Something that has never been done before in our history. Comparing their investigations to anything that happened in the past does not work.

As far as your statement saying Trump is winning. All I see is him losing lately. All of his delay tactics are being shot down in the courts. All the investigations are moving forward and expanding. Some of the investigations are in there final stages.

Garland, Smith, and Willis all know how much time they have left, better than us. They all know what is at stake, better than us.

[gab13by13]

10. One last time before I hit the horrors of grocery shopping.

In less time, Robert Mueller indicted and convicted 34 people, many from Trump's inner circle. Merrick Garland has not even indicted one person from Trump's inner circle, let alone convict them in court.

For comparison sake, you have to agree that Robert Mueller ate Merrick Garland's lunch in regards to holding Trump's inner circle accountable. By the bye, Mueller teed up the evidence to indict Trump for "individual one," and a dozen obstruction of justice crimes. Mueller did not indict Trump because he was a sitting president, Garland chose not to indict Trump for those crimes that Mueller laid out for him.

Headed out to buy some organic eggs.

[fightforfreedom]

11. Once again, you can't compare these investigations to anything in the past.

You refuse to accept that fact. You have been told many times by many members of DU you have your facts wrong when it comes to Garland and the Mueller investigation. You refuse to listen and keep on posting the same thing over and over again. Barr was The AG, not Garland. Barr ended the Mueller investigation, cleared Trump, (lied) and somehow you believe Garland should reopen that case and indict Trump?

Then you complain Garland is moving too slowly in the J6 investigation and the secret document investigation. You believe that and you want him to open past investigations???????

I understand you think Garland has failed. You constantly post about it. You have the right to do that, express your own opinion. But I must respond to your posts that don't make sense when you attack Garland. Garland is the person we are counting on to hold the coup plotters accountable. Garland is not finished yet. We don't know how this is going to end yet. You suggest Garland has failed. I do not understand that.

[kentuck]

12. A democracy without justice is no democracy at all.

There can be no compromise with the law and the Constitution.