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!
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.