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 nations 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, Ive 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. Trumps 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, its fashionable to say the system worked after Watergate. But thats 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. Its not too late to learn from Fords mistake.
Shipwack
(2,138 posts)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)Hopefully things will be different this time.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)it was a terrible mistake.....he was also willing to kick the can down the road regarding Afghanistan
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)Its showing a pattern of behavior over 50 years. Bloated puss bag and his family is one huge criminal enterprise. Weve never had a White House occupant who wanted to destroy the country.
Midnight Writer
(21,548 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(144,005 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(144,005 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(144,005 posts)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.
Link to tweet
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 Trumps 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 Trumps seeming incitement of the insurrection has opened him up to criminal charges. The National Archives requested that the Justice Department open an investigation into Trumps mishandling of top-secret documents that the government recently retrieved from his Florida estate. Trump still faces legal jeopardy for obstructing justice during Robert Muellers 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, Mexicos 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 dont prosecute former leaders and instead allow democracy to take root.
I agree with the concept that not prosecuting TFG will embolden his supporters.