Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sinkingfeeling

(51,279 posts)
Sun Feb 20, 2022, 11:37 AM Feb 2022

Prosecuting Trump would set a risky precedent. Not prosecuting would be worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/02/18/trump-prosecute-risk-law/

By Matthew Dallek

Now this unequal system of justice faces a crossroads. Any decision about prosecuting the former president centers on two conflicting fears: Inaction mocks the nation’s professed ideal that no one sits above the law — and Americans might wonder whether our democracy can survive what amounts to the explicit approval of lawlessness. But prosecuting deposed leaders is the stuff of banana republics.

But the far graver peril in this situation is inaction, a paralyzing refusal to hold Trump criminally liable for his behavior. The country has seen what happens when lawlessness triumphs; when some citizens feel they can do pretty much what they want with impunity. As historian Eric Foner has pointed out, in 1873, in reaction to the election of a biracial government in Colfax, La., a White mob assaulted the county courthouse, murdered a group of African Americans and seized control of the town government without substantial consequences. In 1874, in New Orleans, a white supremacist organization known as the White League tried to topple the state government (U.S. troops at least suppressed this riot). In 1898, long after Reconstruction, armed Whites overturned a duly elected biracial government in Wilmington, N.C. Because there was no law enforcement, no accountability and no consequences, such violence was condoned, sanctioned by the state and some leaders — which thus empowered anti-democratic forces for decades across the Deep South and elsewhere. (One of the impeachment charges against Andrew Johnson said he had fomented post-Civil War white supremacist violence in New Orleans and Memphis.)

Not prosecuting Trump has already signaled to his supporters that accountability is for suckers. “The warning signs of instability that we have identified in other places are the same signs that, over the past decade, I’ve begun to see on our own soil,” political scientist Barbara Walter wrote in “How Civil Wars Start.” The signs include a hollowing out of institutions, “manipulated to serve the interests of some over others.” Trump’s continued ability to manipulate institutions to serve his interests and his supporters’ interests has eroded yet another democratic norm. “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump told the conservative organization Turning Point USA when he held the office. Until the criminal justice system stops him, he will continue to believe that.

These days, it’s fashionable to say the system worked after Watergate. But that’s not quite right. The system forced the president to resign his office, but it also protected the disgraced ex-president from criminal punishment. In 1974, Americans viewed the pardon as a blow to the rule of law. It’s not too late to learn from Ford’s mistake.
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Prosecuting Trump would set a risky precedent. Not prosecuting would be worse. (Original Post) sinkingfeeling Feb 2022 OP
Too late, the precedent was set by Obama. Shipwack Feb 2022 #1
...and not prosecuting the banksters who destroyed the world economy. Fiendish Thingy Feb 2022 #2
I absolutely agree Skittles Feb 2022 #10
This isn't a political prosecution. This would be prosecuting a criminal with a mountain of evidenc onecaliberal Feb 2022 #3
Exactly. There is no valid comparison offered here. Midnight Writer Feb 2022 #4
+1 2naSalit Feb 2022 #5
TFG needs to be prosecuted and held responsible for his crimes LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2022 #6
If we don't acknowledge the wrongdoings of Trump and his Republican party, they will be the norm LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2022 #7
I agree with Prof. Tribe LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2022 #8
Exactly what this editorial says... sinkingfeeling Feb 2022 #9

Shipwack

(2,138 posts)
1. Too late, the precedent was set by Obama.
Sun Feb 20, 2022, 12:04 PM
Feb 2022

One of the biggest mistakes of his presidency was not prosecuting people in the Bush administration for implementing torture as a American policy.

Or his failure to investigate the lies that got us into Iraq….

“Looking forward and not backwards” only emboldened the thugs on the right.

I understand the argument that such actions might have split the country apart, but I disagree with them. The American people, on both ends of the political spectrum, admire decisive action…. After all, Carter got a bump in the polls after the failure of the Iran hostage rescue.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
2. ...and not prosecuting the banksters who destroyed the world economy.
Sun Feb 20, 2022, 12:23 PM
Feb 2022

Hopefully things will be different this time.

Skittles

(152,967 posts)
10. I absolutely agree
Mon Feb 21, 2022, 06:41 AM
Feb 2022

it was a terrible mistake.....he was also willing to kick the can down the road regarding Afghanistan

onecaliberal

(32,489 posts)
3. This isn't a political prosecution. This would be prosecuting a criminal with a mountain of evidenc
Sun Feb 20, 2022, 12:29 PM
Feb 2022

It’s showing a pattern of behavior over 50 years. Bloated puss bag and his family is one huge criminal enterprise. We’ve never had a White House occupant who wanted to destroy the country.

LetMyPeopleVote

(144,005 posts)
8. I agree with Prof. Tribe
Mon Feb 21, 2022, 12:26 AM
Feb 2022

I understand that AG Garland may be hesitant about prosecuting TFG. Third world countries routinely put former leaders on trial and AG Garland may not to set this precedent. However like Nicon, TFG is a unique case and there should be a prosecution.




When President Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, the odds of his standing trial for obstruction of justice seemed high: His actions undermining the Watergate investigation had been tape-recorded, and his part in the coverup led to pressure on the legal system to hold him accountable. In September 1974, however, one month after Nixon left office, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Ford later told a congressional subcommittee that the pardon was designed to “shift our attentions from the pursuit of a fallen President to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation.”.....

If Trump were indicted, he would become the first former president to stand criminal trial. Prosecutorial threats are multiplying: Bank and tax fraud charges are under consideration in Manhattan. In Fulton County, Ga., a special grand jury is investigating Trump’s interference in the 2020 election. In a Washington courtroom, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta told a convicted Jan. 6 Capitol rioter that he was a pawn in a scheme by more powerful people, and the legal community is debating whether Trump’s seeming incitement of the insurrection has opened him up to criminal charges. The National Archives requested that the Justice Department open an investigation into Trump’s mishandling of top-secret documents that the government recently retrieved from his Florida estate. Trump still faces legal jeopardy for obstructing justice during Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election (remember that one?). During the 2016 campaign, Trump allegedly orchestrated hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels (the charges that landed his handler Michael Cohen in prison referred to Trump as Individual #1). This list is hardly exhaustive and omits the dozen-plus civil lawsuits and civil investigations Trump faces.....

But the far graver peril in this situation is inaction, a paralyzing refusal to hold Trump criminally liable for his behavior. The country has seen what happens when lawlessness triumphs; when some citizens feel they can do pretty much what they want with impunity. As historian Eric Foner has pointed out, in 1873, in reaction to the election of a biracial government in Colfax, La., a White mob assaulted the county courthouse, murdered a group of African Americans and seized control of the town government without substantial consequences. In 1874, in New Orleans, a white supremacist organization known as the White League tried to topple the state government (U.S. troops at least suppressed this riot). In 1898, long after Reconstruction, armed Whites overturned a duly elected biracial government in Wilmington, N.C. Because there was no law enforcement, no accountability and no consequences, such violence was condoned, sanctioned by the state and some leaders — which thus empowered anti-democratic forces for decades across the Deep South and elsewhere. (One of the impeachment charges against Andrew Johnson said he had fomented post-Civil War white supremacist violence in New Orleans and Memphis.)

Lessons from overseas also paint a bracing picture: Refusing to hold officials accountable for crimes emboldens them. Putting someone above the law is simply unsustainable for any mature democratic system. In the 20th century, Mexico’s long-time ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party refused to prosecute senior officials for corruption, choosing what three political scientists called “stability” in the political system over “accountability” in the legal one, and corruption became endemic. These scholars argue that nations transitioning toward democracy sometimes do better when they don’t prosecute former leaders and instead allow “democracy to take root.”

I agree with the concept that not prosecuting TFG will embolden his supporters.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Prosecuting Trump would s...