You point out that George W Bush got a lot of pushback from some Republican senators over his actions, and that now there’s apparently not anything remotely coming from the current Senate majority. I wish you would explain this silence in more depth. From my semi-layman’s perspective, it appears we now who are the folks afraid of mean tweets—elected GOP folks.
Hi Gabe. I certainly appreciate your ability to entertain me. I find the idea that trump feels he has a reputation and credibility particularly amusing.
What I don’t find amusing, though , is the fact that he believes he has the neurons to make any kind of decisions about the Smithsonian. Back off don, you’re pissing me off. I happen to be very fond of the Smithsonian.
It wasn’t nearly enough punishment to ensure that Trump was prevented from returning to the office and making his executive actions just as petty, vindictive, and motivated by personal self-dealing as they were before. Not only will this not lend legitimacy to any prosecution of Schiff, James, Bolton, or others of Trump’s targets in the eyes of his opponents; it also does absolutely nothing to discourage the Democrats from pursuing a tit-for-tat prosecution drive against Republicans as a focus of their upcoming campaigns to recapture offices everywhere. After all, it isn’t as if (1) Trump didn’t telegraph his intention to weaponize government and penalize political differences, or (2) the attempt has ever hurt his party.
Our system is comprised of things that work and things that need some tweaking to work better. OR (if things can't or won't be tweaked)..we need to make sure we don't elect immoral, narcissists to the Presidency.
It’s not just that prosecutors are afraid of not getting an indictment or conviction. Prosecutors are lawyers, and are subject to legal codes of ethics. The ABA model code, for example, states that “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” Legal ethics codes are enforced by state bar associations and courts, and lawyers can face disciplinary action and possible disbarment for violations.
For the cult that follows Trump and believes whatever he says, it won't matter that there is no legal case against Obama, Clinton, Comey, Bolton, etc. They will interpret the judicial inaction as another example of how the system is rigged against their favorite president. It will only add fuel to the fire of their anger. This is precisely what Trump wants. It will motivate his base to be more politically engaged (and enraged) on his behalf.
Another in your list of hurdles is that prosecutors don’t like to lose in court—especially if they have a public persona or have to get elected. I don’t think John Kerry ever tried a case as lead counsel as an ADA. (He did try cases as a law student apparently and was second chair with his former law partner when in private practice. He certainly got a lot of mileage out of being a prosecutor although that seems to have been green lighting prosecutions in his elected boss’s name for other people to actually try in court.)
I also don’t think many jurors are swayed by Trump’s “guilty as Hell” rhetoric. The mechanics of the voir dire does weed out bias (mostly) and the pressure from peers to treat matters with gravity in the jury room probably does as well.
The point has been made that the process is the punishment. As voters, we should be vigilant to weed out politicians who subscribe to this philosophy. I would suggest that Trump’s first impeachment was a product of that methodology.
You point out that George W Bush got a lot of pushback from some Republican senators over his actions, and that now there’s apparently not anything remotely coming from the current Senate majority. I wish you would explain this silence in more depth. From my semi-layman’s perspective, it appears we now who are the folks afraid of mean tweets—elected GOP folks.
Hi Gabe. I certainly appreciate your ability to entertain me. I find the idea that trump feels he has a reputation and credibility particularly amusing.
What I don’t find amusing, though , is the fact that he believes he has the neurons to make any kind of decisions about the Smithsonian. Back off don, you’re pissing me off. I happen to be very fond of the Smithsonian.
The process is the punishment. Bring it!
It wasn’t nearly enough punishment to ensure that Trump was prevented from returning to the office and making his executive actions just as petty, vindictive, and motivated by personal self-dealing as they were before. Not only will this not lend legitimacy to any prosecution of Schiff, James, Bolton, or others of Trump’s targets in the eyes of his opponents; it also does absolutely nothing to discourage the Democrats from pursuing a tit-for-tat prosecution drive against Republicans as a focus of their upcoming campaigns to recapture offices everywhere. After all, it isn’t as if (1) Trump didn’t telegraph his intention to weaponize government and penalize political differences, or (2) the attempt has ever hurt his party.
Cleary reported...my conclusion:
Our system is comprised of things that work and things that need some tweaking to work better. OR (if things can't or won't be tweaked)..we need to make sure we don't elect immoral, narcissists to the Presidency.
In some ways it’s kinda nice that Trumps tweeting out his threats to Pam Bondi. Sorta like an inside look to the idiocracy
It’s not just that prosecutors are afraid of not getting an indictment or conviction. Prosecutors are lawyers, and are subject to legal codes of ethics. The ABA model code, for example, states that “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” Legal ethics codes are enforced by state bar associations and courts, and lawyers can face disciplinary action and possible disbarment for violations.
For the cult that follows Trump and believes whatever he says, it won't matter that there is no legal case against Obama, Clinton, Comey, Bolton, etc. They will interpret the judicial inaction as another example of how the system is rigged against their favorite president. It will only add fuel to the fire of their anger. This is precisely what Trump wants. It will motivate his base to be more politically engaged (and enraged) on his behalf.
Gabe - Bravo⭐️🎉⭐️
Another in your list of hurdles is that prosecutors don’t like to lose in court—especially if they have a public persona or have to get elected. I don’t think John Kerry ever tried a case as lead counsel as an ADA. (He did try cases as a law student apparently and was second chair with his former law partner when in private practice. He certainly got a lot of mileage out of being a prosecutor although that seems to have been green lighting prosecutions in his elected boss’s name for other people to actually try in court.)
I also don’t think many jurors are swayed by Trump’s “guilty as Hell” rhetoric. The mechanics of the voir dire does weed out bias (mostly) and the pressure from peers to treat matters with gravity in the jury room probably does as well.
The point has been made that the process is the punishment. As voters, we should be vigilant to weed out politicians who subscribe to this philosophy. I would suggest that Trump’s first impeachment was a product of that methodology.