Linker is wrong. We must indict Trump. We must not appease the MAGA terrorists and thugs by declining to charge Trump if the facts and law would warrant such a charge against any other citizen. We will not prevent a "civil war" by giving in to threats and intimidation, doing so would expedite it and make it worse. We must make our s…
Linker is wrong. We must indict Trump. We must not appease the MAGA terrorists and thugs by declining to charge Trump if the facts and law would warrant such a charge against any other citizen. We will not prevent a "civil war" by giving in to threats and intimidation, doing so would expedite it and make it worse. We must make our stand against our fellow citizens who would have us ruled over by a MAGA authoritarian (or worse), and we must make that stand using the best instrument we have in our arsenal: The Rule of Law.
While I fully concur regarding not appeasing MAGA terrorists, the last time we decided not to negotiate with--foreign--terrorists, that decision gave rise to the era of suicide bombings, because if we weren't going to negotiate with terrorists (via hostage-takings) then the only way to send us messages of deterrence was through horrific violence. I wonder what refusing to negotiate with domestic terrorists will bring us.
It will bring violence but we have no reason to feel guilty about it. Just like on Jan 6th, domestic terrorists are making bad choices and must pay for them.
I don't support negotiating with terrorists, I just also recognize the consequences of what not negotiating with terrorists looks like. I don't think those things are at odds with one another.
And, as I've said, if we have a serious enough problem of insurrectionists primed and ready to go, a hell of a lot better to do it in 22 or 23 where there is a very clear understanding of who is President. Wait till Trump claims fraud in 24 and violence erupts in January of 25 and then what? On Jan 20th things get really dicey on what each person considers the legitimately elected President.
I don't want an Irish Troubles, but I'll take that over Trumpist coup, cause there's no coming back from that if it succeeds, and even if it doesn't I think we're more likely to see Rwanda in 25 which would be catastrophic even if 'we' win.
If Trump is not held accountable if the facts merit prosecution then mob justice is the only recourse. Let's not discount the fury of the MAGA opposition. The Rule of Law is the last vestige of non-violent restitution.
Linker is right. There is nothing that won’t boomerang. That doesn’t mean Trump cannot be stopped, just that indicting him will have the opposite effect *at least in this specific case* with the caveat if there is anything to indict him for, which is questionable.
The voting public is going to be the only thing which ends his career and gets us free of him. Take the fight to the institutions and media which support him. GOTV for non-Trumpist Republicans and Dems. I can’t see him being beat any other way.
As I wrote that, I started wondering if catching him trashing on his supporters would help, Nah, probably not.
It should go without saying that letting Trump and his ilk off the hook legally for fear of insurrection or otherwise infuriating his supporters will embolden their subversive political activity, making it harder to defeat them in that arena too. Trump's efforts to evade legal accountability and pursue political sabotage are all of a piece. You can't cherry pick between them hoping that you can simultaneously quell the mob and preserve the Constitution.
Of course, there are lots of voters who simply don't care whether the country is dragged into the abyss or not. They may in fact hold the key to the country's future, sad to say. But at least it may be possible to approach them without reference to the current irrepressible conflict.
There is nothing “questionable” about the evidence supporting an indictment. If you’ve not watched the January 6th hearings, please do. The MAL documents are just another crime, not the only crime.
I was not talking about January 6. I was talking about the visit from the FBI.  I don’t believe what he has done by keeping those documents is at the level to indict him. I am making no comment on January 6. 
I will also wait to hear which docs were recovered, but if in fact they were Top Secret, “Eyes Only” docs, it is highly against the law to take them to personal space. It would not be our call whether to indict him.
IMO, in that case we should let Terry Albury, Reality Winner, Nghia Pho, and Daniel Hale know that they should have held political office first so that they could subsequently escape indictment and prison.
What exactly is questionable about the abundant evidence that there is definitely something to indict Trump for?
The voting public already spoke and it made no difference. If it did, there would have been no January 6. Liz Cheney would not have lost to an election denier. Pundits would not be opining that "representing" Wyoming means going along with the Big Lie.
Trump, the guy who sees himself as the perpetual victim, has already ensured that his base considers him a martyr. Refraining to prosecute Trump to appease his base will do nothing to promote domestic tranquility. Either way, his base will respond badly--either with faux outrage at the audacity of prosecuting a criminal they support, or gleeful gloating and empowerment if their threats to cause domestic havoc work to get Trump off work. To paraphrase Liz Cheney, Trump will eventually be gone, but the damage caused by a decision made in fear of his base will not only remain but grow.
Max, every single word, every single pointed finger, from a Trump or trumpey or fake Republican conservative, is projection! All of it! All the time! Every time! (So I guess projection is also called propaganda.... and vice versa?)
PS The cognitive dissonance of believing the pacifist democrats will come to your house with AR15s is mind boggling.... but now common.... their brains must be hot mush at this point!
Max E - I gave you a like because I respect your opinion and am not disagreeing with it, but do you think there's some difference in the 2 cases when Nixon actually DID STEP DOWN IN DISGRACE whereas Trump has shown zero remorse and the complete opposite by continually stoking unrest?
The pardon appeared like it was almost in exchange for him stepping down, although I don't that's ever been proven. Almost like a plea agreement where neither side is 100% happy but it's better than going through a full trial which might make everyone even more unhappy.
I get that. I was disgusted that his minions went to prison and he skated. I also do understand the political position that it would have been bad for the country (and worse for the party) though I don't really agree with it. "We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard" resonates here. The GOP took the easy way. Of course Trump minions have already paid some small prices while Trump skates. But something I did not know until recently was that Reagan came very close to being impeached over the Iran Contra affair or selling guns to rebels (I think) and the politicians decided not to impeach him because it was so soon after the Nixon affair.
Have you ever listened to Rachel Maddow's podcast about Spiro Agnew? I think it was called the bag men or something. Anyway...Agnew was nearly as bad as Nixon and was allowed to just resign.
Linker is wrong. We must indict Trump. We must not appease the MAGA terrorists and thugs by declining to charge Trump if the facts and law would warrant such a charge against any other citizen. We will not prevent a "civil war" by giving in to threats and intimidation, doing so would expedite it and make it worse. We must make our stand against our fellow citizens who would have us ruled over by a MAGA authoritarian (or worse), and we must make that stand using the best instrument we have in our arsenal: The Rule of Law.
Well said John. I completely agree and suspect that far more Americans do than don't.
While I fully concur regarding not appeasing MAGA terrorists, the last time we decided not to negotiate with--foreign--terrorists, that decision gave rise to the era of suicide bombings, because if we weren't going to negotiate with terrorists (via hostage-takings) then the only way to send us messages of deterrence was through horrific violence. I wonder what refusing to negotiate with domestic terrorists will bring us.
It will bring violence but we have no reason to feel guilty about it. Just like on Jan 6th, domestic terrorists are making bad choices and must pay for them.
I just hope the Domestic War on Terrorism goes a lot better for America than the Global War on Terrorism did.
I'm not sure arresting people for breaking US laws is a war on terrorism.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Plus, if we hold back now it only makes them stronger. Jail time for perpetrators, election losses for the rest.
I don't support negotiating with terrorists, I just also recognize the consequences of what not negotiating with terrorists looks like. I don't think those things are at odds with one another.
Indict him while many potentially violent actors are under court supervision--on probation, in jail--or under FBI surveillance.
And, as I've said, if we have a serious enough problem of insurrectionists primed and ready to go, a hell of a lot better to do it in 22 or 23 where there is a very clear understanding of who is President. Wait till Trump claims fraud in 24 and violence erupts in January of 25 and then what? On Jan 20th things get really dicey on what each person considers the legitimately elected President.
I don't want an Irish Troubles, but I'll take that over Trumpist coup, cause there's no coming back from that if it succeeds, and even if it doesn't I think we're more likely to see Rwanda in 25 which would be catastrophic even if 'we' win.
If Trump is not held accountable if the facts merit prosecution then mob justice is the only recourse. Let's not discount the fury of the MAGA opposition. The Rule of Law is the last vestige of non-violent restitution.
Linker is right. There is nothing that won’t boomerang. That doesn’t mean Trump cannot be stopped, just that indicting him will have the opposite effect *at least in this specific case* with the caveat if there is anything to indict him for, which is questionable.
The voting public is going to be the only thing which ends his career and gets us free of him. Take the fight to the institutions and media which support him. GOTV for non-Trumpist Republicans and Dems. I can’t see him being beat any other way.
As I wrote that, I started wondering if catching him trashing on his supporters would help, Nah, probably not.
It should go without saying that letting Trump and his ilk off the hook legally for fear of insurrection or otherwise infuriating his supporters will embolden their subversive political activity, making it harder to defeat them in that arena too. Trump's efforts to evade legal accountability and pursue political sabotage are all of a piece. You can't cherry pick between them hoping that you can simultaneously quell the mob and preserve the Constitution.
Of course, there are lots of voters who simply don't care whether the country is dragged into the abyss or not. They may in fact hold the key to the country's future, sad to say. But at least it may be possible to approach them without reference to the current irrepressible conflict.
There is nothing “questionable” about the evidence supporting an indictment. If you’ve not watched the January 6th hearings, please do. The MAL documents are just another crime, not the only crime.
I was not talking about January 6. I was talking about the visit from the FBI.  I don’t believe what he has done by keeping those documents is at the level to indict him. I am making no comment on January 6. 
Since we don’t yet know what the documents are I think I’ll reserve judgment on that.
I will also wait to hear which docs were recovered, but if in fact they were Top Secret, “Eyes Only” docs, it is highly against the law to take them to personal space. It would not be our call whether to indict him.
I was replying to Mel’s assertion that the documents don’t rise to a level worth indictment. You’re correct; just taking them was a crime.
IMO, in that case we should let Terry Albury, Reality Winner, Nghia Pho, and Daniel Hale know that they should have held political office first so that they could subsequently escape indictment and prison.
What exactly is questionable about the abundant evidence that there is definitely something to indict Trump for?
The voting public already spoke and it made no difference. If it did, there would have been no January 6. Liz Cheney would not have lost to an election denier. Pundits would not be opining that "representing" Wyoming means going along with the Big Lie.
Trump, the guy who sees himself as the perpetual victim, has already ensured that his base considers him a martyr. Refraining to prosecute Trump to appease his base will do nothing to promote domestic tranquility. Either way, his base will respond badly--either with faux outrage at the audacity of prosecuting a criminal they support, or gleeful gloating and empowerment if their threats to cause domestic havoc work to get Trump off work. To paraphrase Liz Cheney, Trump will eventually be gone, but the damage caused by a decision made in fear of his base will not only remain but grow.
Exactly right!
This CANNOT be a political decision.
It MUST be a decision to do the right thing under a country allegedly governed by the Rule of Law -- laws, not men.
In a way it is the same reason we have civilian oversight of the military. To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail.
BTW, we already don't have the country we have now.... so to speak...
Max, every single word, every single pointed finger, from a Trump or trumpey or fake Republican conservative, is projection! All of it! All the time! Every time! (So I guess projection is also called propaganda.... and vice versa?)
PS The cognitive dissonance of believing the pacifist democrats will come to your house with AR15s is mind boggling.... but now common.... their brains must be hot mush at this point!
Some fled. Some died. Most lost everything. All suffered for years.
The best time to solve a problem is early.
Including Steve Bannon.
SallyJones
Max E - I gave you a like because I respect your opinion and am not disagreeing with it, but do you think there's some difference in the 2 cases when Nixon actually DID STEP DOWN IN DISGRACE whereas Trump has shown zero remorse and the complete opposite by continually stoking unrest?
The pardon appeared like it was almost in exchange for him stepping down, although I don't that's ever been proven. Almost like a plea agreement where neither side is 100% happy but it's better than going through a full trial which might make everyone even more unhappy.
Just food for thought...
I get that. I was disgusted that his minions went to prison and he skated. I also do understand the political position that it would have been bad for the country (and worse for the party) though I don't really agree with it. "We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard" resonates here. The GOP took the easy way. Of course Trump minions have already paid some small prices while Trump skates. But something I did not know until recently was that Reagan came very close to being impeached over the Iran Contra affair or selling guns to rebels (I think) and the politicians decided not to impeach him because it was so soon after the Nixon affair.
Can't argue with that.
Have you ever listened to Rachel Maddow's podcast about Spiro Agnew? I think it was called the bag men or something. Anyway...Agnew was nearly as bad as Nixon and was allowed to just resign.
Both are very poor examples to follow I think.