Should Trump be legally held to account? Both Linker and Charen say no, but they slide right by the question of who should make the call. Prosecutors, declining to indict? Or the president via the pardon power?
Without addressing the issue head-on clear they think the call is the prosecutor's to make. Linker says Trump shouldn't be indict…
Should Trump be legally held to account? Both Linker and Charen say no, but they slide right by the question of who should make the call. Prosecutors, declining to indict? Or the president via the pardon power?
Without addressing the issue head-on clear they think the call is the prosecutor's to make. Linker says Trump shouldn't be indicted, Charen refers to pursuing Trump criminally.
This is a mistake. In our constitutional order is the job of politicians, accountable to the voters, to make a decision that for political reasons someone is above the law. The job of the prosecutor or AG is to make a lawyerly determination whether the offense merits prosecution and whether a prosecution will likely succeed. Going beyond that is usurpation, a non-politician taking on the duties of a politician.
I find it strange that both Linker completely confine themselves to speculation of how the politics will pay out and completely neglect who should make the call. The two are not un-related. If Merrick Garland makes his decision for political reasons it will widely be seen as illegitimate.
If Biden chooses to pardon Trump, or not, it will be a legitimate decision made by the proper authority.
Should Trump be legally held to account? Both Linker and Charen say no, but they slide right by the question of who should make the call. Prosecutors, declining to indict? Or the president via the pardon power?
Without addressing the issue head-on clear they think the call is the prosecutor's to make. Linker says Trump shouldn't be indicted, Charen refers to pursuing Trump criminally.
This is a mistake. In our constitutional order is the job of politicians, accountable to the voters, to make a decision that for political reasons someone is above the law. The job of the prosecutor or AG is to make a lawyerly determination whether the offense merits prosecution and whether a prosecution will likely succeed. Going beyond that is usurpation, a non-politician taking on the duties of a politician.
This is not an off-the-wall position. It is how we handled Nixon. Call it the Ford option. See https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2022/07/22/the-attorney-generals-choice/ for an excellent discussion.
I find it strange that both Linker completely confine themselves to speculation of how the politics will pay out and completely neglect who should make the call. The two are not un-related. If Merrick Garland makes his decision for political reasons it will widely be seen as illegitimate.
If Biden chooses to pardon Trump, or not, it will be a legitimate decision made by the proper authority.