I don't understand David Frum's, a staff writer at The Atlantic, comments today in his peace, "Don’t Indict Trump With This." I gather that he is concerned that going after DJT now for one of his least aggregious offense will backfire. I whole heartily disagree. Here's why, in no particular…
I don't understand David Frum's, a staff writer at The Atlantic, comments today in his peace, "Don’t Indict Trump With This." I gather that he is concerned that going after DJT now for one of his least aggregious offense will backfire. I whole heartily disagree. Here's why, in no particular order:
1. There's apparently irrefutable evidence of THIS crime, so why not fire the first salvo here? It's almost a sure bet to secure a guilty. If this case fails, then what chance do the more nuanced have?
2. It puts DJT already on the defensive, from which he may plea to the forthcoming cases brought against him, thus saving tax dollars and a lot of wasted time.
3. He did it, so why not prosecute the multitude of his legal transgressions in this case?
4. It would be hypocritical to not prosecute this but bring other cases.
5. It's time to put a sock in the angry Republican contingency's mouthing that the law doesn't matter when you don't like it. That's what the legislature is for. Protest that institution.
Re: "The Non-Trivial Crimes of Donald J. Trump":
I don't understand David Frum's, a staff writer at The Atlantic, comments today in his peace, "Don’t Indict Trump With This." I gather that he is concerned that going after DJT now for one of his least aggregious offense will backfire. I whole heartily disagree. Here's why, in no particular order:
1. There's apparently irrefutable evidence of THIS crime, so why not fire the first salvo here? It's almost a sure bet to secure a guilty. If this case fails, then what chance do the more nuanced have?
2. It puts DJT already on the defensive, from which he may plea to the forthcoming cases brought against him, thus saving tax dollars and a lot of wasted time.
3. He did it, so why not prosecute the multitude of his legal transgressions in this case?
4. It would be hypocritical to not prosecute this but bring other cases.
5. It's time to put a sock in the angry Republican contingency's mouthing that the law doesn't matter when you don't like it. That's what the legislature is for. Protest that institution.
Add:
6. This indictment can be looked upon as just the first pebble in a soon-to-be avalanche of indictments being handed down.
fnord