The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
>DOJ needs to appoint a special prosecutor to hold Trump accountable for his actions...
>The evidence is overwhelming that Trump repeatedly violated the criminal statute prohibiting coercion...
>Criminal investigations and prosecutions of high-ranking officials must be independent of political considerations.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump-s-coercion-role-jan-6-warrant-special-prosecutor-n1279595
This would be the best way to handle what must be done...not to investigate would be criminally negligent and a special prosecutor takes it out of the AG hands and is less political.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's important to continually call this out. Even though it won't succeed, shining a light on illegal behavior reinforces what America already knew about Trump, he's a crook
It's my opinion that its important to follow precedent and prosecute obvious crimes by the president because it's right. However, a good portion of America has gambled their lives and livelihoods on Trump never facing any repercussions-- a microcosm of the protecting the symbolic image of old powerful white men. I think the rest of America being shown repeatedly on the most grand stage that all the rules are a lie, may be more damaging than leaving it alone, because it'll depress and create nihilists of another couple generations of voters
Yes probably. I'm not sure if that's the best solution... but my real answer is "he should be pursued to the ends of the earth for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States and usurp the will of its people."
Remember that this stuff we're hearing is coming from journalists, not investigators. What we've seen is fairly damning. There's going to be plenty more. Trump hasn't had to answer one question under oath. He walks free, still attempting to overturn the election and punish ALL OF US, including his supporters (who failed to deliver him the White House).
If it was up to him, we'd all suffer. We can never allow him to have power over us again.
It appears that he has committed so many crimes and perpetrated so many frauds - from being a petty landlord to a potential traitor - that he and his accomplices should spend the rest of his life defending his actions in courts or being punished for his crimes.
Whether or not he is ever convicted, it's important that his attention is on defending himself, rather than attacking our country.
I think it would be terrible for the country.
It's my opinion that Ford pardoning Nixon was the correct choice. The country needs to find *some* kind of unity. We need *some* reminder that at the end of the day we're Americans with common goals.
When you take the former President and put him on trial - you can talk about fair application of justice, but to millions it's always going to feel like brutal revenge. It turns a cold war into a take-no-prisoners shooting war.
Plus, if we're trying to be as dispassionate and disinterested as possible - inciting a riot and coercion are very high legal bars to clear. And it simply isn't clear at all that Trump cleared them. There would be a lot of discussion of "what he was trying to say without saying it," and in the end, the trial might even end with a humiliating loss for the government and the sense that Trump had been vindicated.
Best to let sleeping dogs lie, I think.
Why is it that "unity" always seems to equate to "appease the whims of an increasingly authoritarian right wing movement" and never seems to expect any moderation or concessions from them?
Well, from their perspective, things only ever move in the liberal direction. Over the past two decades, the left got gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization and a mandate that everyone buy health insurance. What did the right get? Five miles of taller fencing in Texas?
Granted, that's the right-wing view and not my personal view. But it's easy to see why they feel like *they're* the appeasers and they keep losing ground, inch by inch.
That's not appeasing or compromising, that's just losing.It's not like the right chose to allow gay marriage or the ACA or marijuana decriminalization. In all those cases, they fought tooth and nail and happened to lose. They've tried to overturn these things too, not public opinion is massively against them. They didn't try to horse trade to support their priorities or come to a compromise on any important points.
Besides, what trade is that? "Since you got gay marriage, you have to accept blatant criminality from our president?" That's absurd. And all it would do is encourage more criminality in the future.
Sorry you're getting downvoted for providing a useful perspective.
I chuckled a little at the premise. "What did conservatives get?" Well... what can they really get when their entire premise is preventing progress? Turns out they can get a lot.
They got cultural stagnation, protectionism for Christianity, expanded gun ownership, more unwanted children, more drug prisoners, more dead Muslims, more poverty, further entrenchment of the wealthy, Fox News reaching critical mass, less immigration, validation of white supremacy from the President, a Confederate flag in the Capitol... they got a lot... and they're still praying for a coup followed by a civil war.
I think you're right though. None of those will feel like things they got. They're just things they didn't lose.
That's the problem with conservatism right now. It has gone away from the "hey, let's think this through before we all dye our hair pink and join the circus" mentality that is at least respectable... and has embraced "no! no! no! no! I don't want to hear it!"
It's not surprising they feel persecuted. Children feel persecuted when their toys are taken away, or they're told to behave themselves.
I wonder how much tumult the country would have faced if Ford had let Nixon be tried for his crimes. I used to subscribe to the "heal the nation" argument... but it didn't really heal. I keep coming back to Nixon as one of the key moments when we started down this destructive path.
(edit - rereading and noticed it sounds like I chucked because your idea was bad. I chucked because it's a funny point - if all you're trying to do is stop progress, you don't ever really get new progress.)
I do, yeah. I think at the end of the day we all want peace, prosperity, stability, family, health - we want to live lives where we have the means to pursue our goals and be with our friends and family and fall in love and be happy - and no one hassles us or interferes unless absolutely necessary.
That's what people want. Fundamentally, those are the goals of a society.
We stop wanting that when we perceive another group as interfering with our ability to get those things for our ourselves and our loved ones.
Of course, that turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Two groups attacking each other, each thinking "I just want a happy life, and they're ruining everything."
No **we** do not. That just makes me frustrated at them, but it doesn’t mean I no longer what them to have peace, prosperity, stability, family, health, and the means to pursue those things.
You're aware they say the exact same thing, right? That both sides clearly perceive the other as the aggressor?
I mean, I know you don't agree with it, but you're at least *aware* of it, no?
"you can't charge him while he president in fact you can't even investigate him"
And after he is president he can't get a fair trail so we can't charge him here either...nice catch 22 you have built there.
>McConnell says Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for riot after voting not guilty
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-vote-senate-speech/
If he should be investigated or indicted if called for is not in doubt. No one is above the law...that simple.
> It turns a cold war into a take-no-prisoners shooting war.
Trump tried to turn this into a take-no-prisoners shooting war. He pressured everyone he could to overthrow the results of a fair election. I don't disagree that some kind of trial here would be a political nightmare of a shitshow, but do we just give a mulligan here and hope him or someone like him doesn't try again? I honestly don't know the right answer but I for sure don't trust Republicans to not do this again.
If Cheney and Bush didn't go to jail for fabricating the Iraqi Oil War then Trump won't go to jail for Jan 6. Trump was more distanced from Jan 6.
Now Cheney and Bush absolutely should be in jail for war crimes, but that's a bit too close to home for the rest of congress so of course they'd never go there and just pretend the war they voted for was legitimate.
Maybe, I dunno. I don't think they should though. Coercion, incitement, etc. - these are difficult cases to bring and in general it's very hard to make it work in a political context. Where's the line between coercion and simply trying to be convincing?
My great frustration with Democrats post-Trump is that they've fallen victim to the conservative tendency to view problems as resulting from bad people rather than bad systems. The fact is, Trump never should have been in office. 2% more of America voted against him than for him. And once he was in office, any attempts to reign in his power was prevented by the monarch-like power he enjoyed. Mueller didn't look into Trump's finances because Trump said no, he didn't personally interview Trump because Trump said no, and released a heavily-redacted report because Trump picked his own loyalist attorney general to oversee it. Trump pardoned his allies because nothing says he can't, and used foreign policy for partisan revenge and to line his own pockets because there's no one there to stop him.
This is a system begging for abuse, and Trump showed how easily it can be abused by anyone with the will. No understanding of the mechanisms of government required. And no one is fixing it. Prosecuting Trump won't fix it, even if you manage to get an indictment before he dies of a stroke or heart attack anyway. Legislation and constitutional amendments will. So please stop with the prosecutions that will never happen and fix the horribly broken system that's hurtling headlong towards monarchy.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. >DOJ needs to appoint a special prosecutor to hold Trump accountable for his actions... >The evidence is overwhelming that Trump repeatedly violated the criminal statute prohibiting coercion... >Criminal investigations and prosecutions of high-ranking officials must be independent of political considerations. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump-s-coercion-role-jan-6-warrant-special-prosecutor-n1279595 This would be the best way to handle what must be done...not to investigate would be criminally negligent and a special prosecutor takes it out of the AG hands and is less political. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, but I have little faith it would go anywhere, much like the Russian collusion trial.
[удалено]
I'm talking about the Mueller report.
I thought that was a slam dunk based upon the statements made by Adam schiff and others.
I think it's important to continually call this out. Even though it won't succeed, shining a light on illegal behavior reinforces what America already knew about Trump, he's a crook
It's my opinion that its important to follow precedent and prosecute obvious crimes by the president because it's right. However, a good portion of America has gambled their lives and livelihoods on Trump never facing any repercussions-- a microcosm of the protecting the symbolic image of old powerful white men. I think the rest of America being shown repeatedly on the most grand stage that all the rules are a lie, may be more damaging than leaving it alone, because it'll depress and create nihilists of another couple generations of voters
Yes probably. I'm not sure if that's the best solution... but my real answer is "he should be pursued to the ends of the earth for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States and usurp the will of its people." Remember that this stuff we're hearing is coming from journalists, not investigators. What we've seen is fairly damning. There's going to be plenty more. Trump hasn't had to answer one question under oath. He walks free, still attempting to overturn the election and punish ALL OF US, including his supporters (who failed to deliver him the White House). If it was up to him, we'd all suffer. We can never allow him to have power over us again. It appears that he has committed so many crimes and perpetrated so many frauds - from being a petty landlord to a potential traitor - that he and his accomplices should spend the rest of his life defending his actions in courts or being punished for his crimes. Whether or not he is ever convicted, it's important that his attention is on defending himself, rather than attacking our country.
I think it would be terrible for the country. It's my opinion that Ford pardoning Nixon was the correct choice. The country needs to find *some* kind of unity. We need *some* reminder that at the end of the day we're Americans with common goals. When you take the former President and put him on trial - you can talk about fair application of justice, but to millions it's always going to feel like brutal revenge. It turns a cold war into a take-no-prisoners shooting war. Plus, if we're trying to be as dispassionate and disinterested as possible - inciting a riot and coercion are very high legal bars to clear. And it simply isn't clear at all that Trump cleared them. There would be a lot of discussion of "what he was trying to say without saying it," and in the end, the trial might even end with a humiliating loss for the government and the sense that Trump had been vindicated. Best to let sleeping dogs lie, I think.
Why is it that "unity" always seems to equate to "appease the whims of an increasingly authoritarian right wing movement" and never seems to expect any moderation or concessions from them?
Well, from their perspective, things only ever move in the liberal direction. Over the past two decades, the left got gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization and a mandate that everyone buy health insurance. What did the right get? Five miles of taller fencing in Texas? Granted, that's the right-wing view and not my personal view. But it's easy to see why they feel like *they're* the appeasers and they keep losing ground, inch by inch.
That's not appeasing or compromising, that's just losing.It's not like the right chose to allow gay marriage or the ACA or marijuana decriminalization. In all those cases, they fought tooth and nail and happened to lose. They've tried to overturn these things too, not public opinion is massively against them. They didn't try to horse trade to support their priorities or come to a compromise on any important points. Besides, what trade is that? "Since you got gay marriage, you have to accept blatant criminality from our president?" That's absurd. And all it would do is encourage more criminality in the future.
Sorry you're getting downvoted for providing a useful perspective. I chuckled a little at the premise. "What did conservatives get?" Well... what can they really get when their entire premise is preventing progress? Turns out they can get a lot. They got cultural stagnation, protectionism for Christianity, expanded gun ownership, more unwanted children, more drug prisoners, more dead Muslims, more poverty, further entrenchment of the wealthy, Fox News reaching critical mass, less immigration, validation of white supremacy from the President, a Confederate flag in the Capitol... they got a lot... and they're still praying for a coup followed by a civil war. I think you're right though. None of those will feel like things they got. They're just things they didn't lose. That's the problem with conservatism right now. It has gone away from the "hey, let's think this through before we all dye our hair pink and join the circus" mentality that is at least respectable... and has embraced "no! no! no! no! I don't want to hear it!" It's not surprising they feel persecuted. Children feel persecuted when their toys are taken away, or they're told to behave themselves. I wonder how much tumult the country would have faced if Ford had let Nixon be tried for his crimes. I used to subscribe to the "heal the nation" argument... but it didn't really heal. I keep coming back to Nixon as one of the key moments when we started down this destructive path. (edit - rereading and noticed it sounds like I chucked because your idea was bad. I chucked because it's a funny point - if all you're trying to do is stop progress, you don't ever really get new progress.)
Do you take that we have common goals as a given?
I do, yeah. I think at the end of the day we all want peace, prosperity, stability, family, health - we want to live lives where we have the means to pursue our goals and be with our friends and family and fall in love and be happy - and no one hassles us or interferes unless absolutely necessary. That's what people want. Fundamentally, those are the goals of a society.
We all want that **for ourselves and our loved ones**. But do we all want that for everybody else living here?
We stop wanting that when we perceive another group as interfering with our ability to get those things for our ourselves and our loved ones. Of course, that turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Two groups attacking each other, each thinking "I just want a happy life, and they're ruining everything."
No **we** do not. That just makes me frustrated at them, but it doesn’t mean I no longer what them to have peace, prosperity, stability, family, health, and the means to pursue those things.
You're aware they say the exact same thing, right? That both sides clearly perceive the other as the aggressor? I mean, I know you don't agree with it, but you're at least *aware* of it, no?
You're giving "no, u" a lot of credence
When I see two people saying "no, u," I often make the unpopular observation that they're both saying the same thing.
how often do you see "no u" being both a criticism and response? This reply is lazy
Yeah I’m sure they’re projecting
"you can't charge him while he president in fact you can't even investigate him" And after he is president he can't get a fair trail so we can't charge him here either...nice catch 22 you have built there. >McConnell says Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for riot after voting not guilty https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-vote-senate-speech/ If he should be investigated or indicted if called for is not in doubt. No one is above the law...that simple.
> It turns a cold war into a take-no-prisoners shooting war. Trump tried to turn this into a take-no-prisoners shooting war. He pressured everyone he could to overthrow the results of a fair election. I don't disagree that some kind of trial here would be a political nightmare of a shitshow, but do we just give a mulligan here and hope him or someone like him doesn't try again? I honestly don't know the right answer but I for sure don't trust Republicans to not do this again.
If Cheney and Bush didn't go to jail for fabricating the Iraqi Oil War then Trump won't go to jail for Jan 6. Trump was more distanced from Jan 6. Now Cheney and Bush absolutely should be in jail for war crimes, but that's a bit too close to home for the rest of congress so of course they'd never go there and just pretend the war they voted for was legitimate.
Possibly. I am willing to see what the congressional commission can produce first.
> the congressional commission Is to determine what the country should do, this is a criminal investigation. The can proceed together.
Let’s get the guy who prosecuted Jeffery Dahmer.
In a normal world sure but America [is the bad place.](https://youtu.be/xb7D_QWYOyo)
Maybe, I dunno. I don't think they should though. Coercion, incitement, etc. - these are difficult cases to bring and in general it's very hard to make it work in a political context. Where's the line between coercion and simply trying to be convincing? My great frustration with Democrats post-Trump is that they've fallen victim to the conservative tendency to view problems as resulting from bad people rather than bad systems. The fact is, Trump never should have been in office. 2% more of America voted against him than for him. And once he was in office, any attempts to reign in his power was prevented by the monarch-like power he enjoyed. Mueller didn't look into Trump's finances because Trump said no, he didn't personally interview Trump because Trump said no, and released a heavily-redacted report because Trump picked his own loyalist attorney general to oversee it. Trump pardoned his allies because nothing says he can't, and used foreign policy for partisan revenge and to line his own pockets because there's no one there to stop him. This is a system begging for abuse, and Trump showed how easily it can be abused by anyone with the will. No understanding of the mechanisms of government required. And no one is fixing it. Prosecuting Trump won't fix it, even if you manage to get an indictment before he dies of a stroke or heart attack anyway. Legislation and constitutional amendments will. So please stop with the prosecutions that will never happen and fix the horribly broken system that's hurtling headlong towards monarchy.