Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ken Peabody's avatar

Perhaps a federal indictment is politically difficult, but what about a state indictment such as the ones being contemplated in GA or NY? Also, could blue states, such as CA or NY refuse to put his name on the ballot? There has to be a way to stop him from holding office. Deport him. Anything. The problem with not indicating him is that it appears to put certain people above the law. It would also encourage others to try the same thing in the future. If he's indicted, and then convicted, there would be trouble, but wouldn't we at least get it over with instead of letting it fester? Also, what will be the reaction from the anti-trump camp if there is no indictment? We made a grave mistake in the 1860s by not trying, convicting, and executing the rebel leadership. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

Argh. I want very much to disagree with you, Damon, but all of your points are quite valid, especially in this ultrapolarized environment. I remain undecided as to whether failing to hold Trump accountable under the law will cause longer-lasting damage than prosecuting him will cause near-term harm, but that's not an answerable question. I do worry that the longer we shy away from holding everyone accountable, the less legitimacy our system has. I don't know where the threshold of critical mass lies, but I'm still scared of crossing it.

I wonder if there is a third option involving a Special Prosecutor. Is that a feasible solution to this or will any effort to hold Trump legally accountable have the stink of politicization and therefore be inadvisable?

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts