It was the death rattle of the House 1-6 select investigatory committee, issuing its totally anti-climatic, non-legal-binding recommendation to the Department of Justice that it press charges against former President Donald J. Trump.
I wrote the above before the hearing began shortly after 1 p.m. on Monday. In the 90 minutes of the hearing, nothing happened to change that. Nothing new was introduced. It was a rehash of the past.
And I have written in the past that the committee had, at best, circumstantial evidence against former President Donald J. Trump, but now that I see the exact charges, I may change my mind. The charges are:
*Assisting or aiding an insurrection
*Obstruction of an official proceeding
*Conspiracy to make false statements
*Conspiracy to defraud the U.S..
Depending on the full legal language of each charge, yeah, I can see him being guilty of several.
But that is up to the Department of Justice. The committee’s recommendation does not have the weight of law.
The recommendation is historic, nothing like it has been done before. But don’t forget that congress twice impeached this man, but failed to convict.
Will DOJ want to take on Trump, enflaming his millions of supporters, some of them so enamored last week they bought worthless digital trading cards of the man? Or will DOJ decide to let the American people decide by rejecting — again — Trump’s candidacy?
And, should he lose, will Trump accept a loss with grace?
There’s little doubt he will.
But, personally, I think that would be a better outcome than the prosecution. Trump is a dying star.
To enable a Trump versus Joe Biden rematch in 2024 — Biden should pardon Trump.
It would be magnanimous, and a shock.
Would the MAGA forces say it shows Biden’s mental deterioration?
I doubt it.
It would clear the playing field. And think of how shamed Trump would be to accept it.
Interesting concept, but only if one completely ignores that whole “equal justice for all” thing we got going on here in America. 🙂
Justice is malleable. Plea bargains, for instance.
Biden should “offer” Trump a pardon and put the onus on Trump to accept or reject it.
You think Trump would reject it?
Donald Trump broke the law. Listen to Representative Jamie Raskin’s statement today. He outlined the issues quite eloquently.
No one is above the law. Police officers were physically abused and killed because of the despicable behavior of Trump and his supporters on January 6th.
He needs to be held responsible.
Bad things happened. No question. What I have not heard is PROOF Trump organized the law-breaking that followed the rally he did organize.
Susan Green what proof do you have that officers were killed? That said proof is the optimum word.
I agree, Stu: pardon DT.
The Nixon pardon soothed a sick nation. Yeah, the Nixon haters roared, but peace among the people was restored. It is time to do the same with DT. In my lifetime, only Nixon brought out such hatred in the Left as has DT. A pardon will bring peace. We cannot go on this way, hating each other. The poisoned well will doom all of us.
HAPPY MONDAY !!!
pallie,
It’s a real shame. Trump could of stepped away and history would have been kind to him. Not now.
( sarcasm ) How dare you apply common sense and reasoning to a subject that is certainly lacking all of that and more!
Will a pardon quiet Donald Trump and essentially, make him go away ? NO ! If his ego is bigger than anything around, he’ll play it the other way. Go for the win.
We are in a sad situation. Trump did some good when he was in office. Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda doesn’t work here.
I don’t see any means or methods to have Trump go away quietly. Any one who enters the republican primary for the Presidential election better not only be thick skinned, but totally deaf and dumb when it comes to the fight that Trump will bring.
Tony
I think a pardon should eventually be forthcoming for the reasons you cite, but that one now is premature. Verdict first, pardon afterwards. The biggest rap on the Jan 6 committee was no cross-examination or presentation of (hypothetical) contrary evidence. Let’s have a public trial or trials and see what the best evidence is. The hearings exposed a lot of evidence–the public has a right to know if there is more to the defense beyond the claim that the witnesses lied, or that there is something more that was not put in evidence. Let Trump put on the witnesses he wants, produce additional documents or testify for himself. Let his attorneys cross-examine government witnesses. However it turns out–like the OJ trial say–people can make their own judgment.
Trump beat the second impeachment in large part–at least according to McConnell–because he was leaving office anyway, and if he did something wrong, he could and should be prosecuted. ( McConnell said “There’s no question—none—that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” But, as he was leaving office, impeachment was inappropriate because “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”) A pardon would be unfair to the senators who voted against impeachment and the public who supported that stance based on this argument, if, in fact, former presidents do have that immunity.
I agree that the Nixon pardon was the right thing to do, but it was under entirely different circumstances. It was after a whole slew of his co-conspirators had been indicted. It was after he resigned and retired from public life. In an ordinary case, a pardon should be issued where there is contrition and exemplary rehabilitation or vindication that the courts can’t provide. The former has not, and is unlikely to ever occur. The latter is what Trump would depict it as. He and his supporters would say “They knew they didn’t have the evidence and that it was hoax–it wasn’t for the public good, it was to hide the lies from being tested at a trial!”–and plenty would believe it. Under these circumstances, a pardon would do nothing to heal our divisions, only set them in stone. We need accountability. We got that from Nixon’s resignation and the conviction of his co-conspirators. We don’t have that from Trump yet.
Finally, there is no legal bar to Trump running while under indictment or even from jail–so, at least technically he does not “need” a pardon to run, and I expect he would continue to do so. With respect, and without any attempt at “snark” I think you are making an error similar to Krasner’s here: doubtless, in some instances the public good can be served by not prosecuting a crime, but I think one ought to be pretty darn sure in each particular instance that it is the right thing to do and be fully aware of the possible consequences. Here I think it would be just more charges of stolen elections, including in the primaries, and more January 6’s.
Oh, I am all for a trial, but I suspect DOJ won’t go there, and it will enflame Trumpsters, as I said. But thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Be careful what you wish for.
Now that a special prosecutor has been appointed, I think there will be an indictment. Take a look at his bio. Also, the hundred page summary the committee released is worth reading.
And while Trumpsters may be inflamed, a lot of them have already burned out. Taking to the streets to defend a digital trading-card salesman doesn’t have a lot of glamour. Also, since the Jan 6 prosecutions for the Capitol riot, the naive notion that one can do such things without consequences has been largely dissipated along with the idea that Trump will be there for them if things go sideways. I expect there will be the now usual threats to the FBI, prosecutors, witnesses and judges from nuts who will promptly be arrested. I also expect there will remain a hardcore similar to the Free Mumia folks, but that does not create much of a threat.
If Trump is prosecuted, then down the road a Democrat president will suffer the same fate. That’s what I mean by ‘be careful what you wish for’. Remember Bork? The Right got even against Obama.
If a Democratic president did what Trump did, I would support his or her prosecution. Just like a whole lot of Republicans want Trump prosecuted. Your mistake is that you think this is all about partisanship. It is not. Liz Cheney, and all the other GOP congressmen and senators who voted for impeachment generally voted with Trump 90% of the time. These weren’t never-Trumpers, they were “enough-of-this” Trumpers. Are you really for or against prosecution of corrupt politicians based on whether there is an R or D after their name? I want them all prosecuted. Why don’t you?