I am not someone who used the Munich appeasement analogy with respect to your position regarding potential indictment of Trump, because I think it is too much of a knee-jerk reaction, but I do not think that someone making the analogy is an idiot for doing so. A disappointing response to those who disagree with you.
Maybe I should have used a softer adjective than "idiotic." My irritation grows out of being called Neville Chamberlain hundreds of times with no additional argument included, as if that alone should be considered a fatal blow. I don't think it passes muster. I hope the line of argument in the first section of this post stands with or without this one offending word.
I can understand your irritation. I think the Munich analogy is often ill-used, because I think it is impossible to separate it from the 20-20 hindsight of what it led to and who Hitler turned out to be, because it is all too easy to forget how war-weary Europe was after WWI ending only 20 years before, and because there are probably analogies in which taking a softer line led to a positive result, which have gotten lost to history.
I don't view you as appeasing Trump. You are correct about the fact that so far Trump has not been accused, let alone indicted, of any crime. It certainly appears that he broke the law in taking documents with him to FL. I would be OK with a deal that has Biden pardon him of any federal crimes with the proviso Trump is barred from seeking or holding any office. Then the question becomes would Trump accept such a deal? If the crimes were serious enough, and the evidence overwhelming, he might. Also, if he were told he would be imprisoned as a flight risk, that might convince him to accept such a deal. We are in uncharted waters, with no good ideas on how to navigate. I do agree that losing at the polls would be ideal, but that, like all possible outcomes, carries grave risk. One last point is that GA and NY are pusuing investigations of wrongdoing as well, si even if DOJ decides not to prosecute, Trump still might go to jail.
I agree. But even that carries risks. If his indicted in a state court, and then acquitted, he would scream witch hunt and full exonerated at the top of his lungs. If convicted, I think that would not disqualify him from running for president, which would be another huge can of worms.
Doesn't the argument on whether or not to prosecute depend on there being something clearly indictable to begin with. If there isn't, or if it's simply ambiguous, I can't see Garland prosecuting -- nor should he. The question is -- should Garland refrain from prosecuting a case whose merits are clear, serious and undeniable, a case he would prosecute against anyone else. Someone suggested that if there is a decision to prosecute, Biden should then step in to pardon. That may be the best of the bad alternatives.
From reading your posts and editorial on this issue I get the feeling that you're a little less alarmed by Trump the individual than many of your readers, including me. That may account for some of the disconnect. The issue isn't simply polarization -- it's the man uniquely capable of stoking rage and amplifying it, who's succeeded in transforming his party in his very frightening image. The Democrats, for all their potential foolishness, wouldn't have stormed the capitol in an analogous situation because they don't have a Trump at their head.
Agree with all of your points. If the Dems who responded to the NYT opinion are focused on seeing Trump in jail, if he were prosecuted, convicted and all appeals exhausted, which is a long, long way ahead, that focus is misplaced.
Re the pardon - I read somewhere that the Nixon pardon included a promise from him not to run again. That would be completely satisfactory to me. I don't have to see him in jail. I just need to see him investigated and if, as you said, and if the facts and the law are clear, see him charged. Then pardoned with the stipulation he never run for office again.
Question, not rhetorical. Do you think the government, especially Garland, made the right decision in recovering the documents, including a search warrant when other means seem to have been insufficient?
Yes, and I said as much on the "Beg to Differ" podcast last week. If Trump took classified documents with him when he left the White House and Garland requested they be returned and then Trump refused, he likely had no choice but to execute a search warrant to retrieve them. From the moment the warrant was executed/the raid took place, I've thought and written that "the theatrics of the event served as a preliminary test of how the country will respond to any effort by law enforcement to prosecute Trump." https://damonlinker.substack.com/p/america-is-already-failing-the-trump
That doesn't mean the event was unjustified. Just that it gave us a glimpse of what the reaction to far more precipitous actions, like indictment and a trial, would be.
I appreciate you publicly verbalizing an uncertainty and feeling of unease that I've had for a long time... has DJT definitely broken any laws? I acknowledge that I certainly don't know - and per your report, it seems some legal scholars are likewise uncertain.
Still, seemingly every time I try to engage with MAGA-ites, it deteriorates into talking points stemming from a lack of shared facts and priorities. Honestly, I really don't care if Hunter Biden profited off his last name - so long as Joe Biden didn't grant favors and act against the interest of the country in order to benefit his son. However, the fact that MAGA-ites hold that up as an example of unpunished corruption with all that DJT did WHILE POTUS (e.g. blatant nepotism, lack of financial disclosures, failure to establish a blind trust, etc) leaves me incredulous and highly suspicious of entirely motivated reasoning on the part of my interlocutor.
My concern is your factual examination of the situation doesn't seem to give much, if any weight, to the emotional aspect of the question. Trump has provided cover and support to the worst types of people in our country. He has gathered them to his position, not by logic or facts, but by playing on their fears. He has identified and magnified the fears of many rural voters while enabling many wealthy people to use these fears for their advantage. We have only brushed the surface of how religion plays into this situation.
Whether or not we proceed with an indictment of Trump, the civil war has already started. Jan 6th was the opening battle, and it will continue, even after he has passed from the scene. People treat Trump as a one-off, but he isn't. He is merely the tip of the spear, and others will follow. This civil war will not be fought between armies; it will be a guerilla action against our federal institutions - threats against government workers, attacks on law enforcement personnel and judges. These actions have already started and will only become more frequent.
One possible advantage of prosecuting Trump would be the precedent we establish for the next want-to-be dictator. It could establish a legal basis for moving against the next person who openly despises our laws and institutions.
In the end, I don't think it matters one way or the other; his supporters will follow him regardless of any legal actions taken against him. I don't believe the forces opposing Trump have a plan or a unified vision, but Trump's people do. They hide under the "conservatism" label, but their goals are spelled out as "White Christian Nationalism." The ultimate goal is to turn America into a white Christian theocracy.
The analogy with Hitler is not even close. Still, many of Hitler's tactics are being used - blame others for your problems, arm yourselves for the coming battle, and America First sounds like a rallying cry Hitler used to unify the public behind him. Trump's rallies are mini-versions of Hitler's rallies. We are fortunate that Trump is nowhere near Hitler's ability at public speaking.
We have only to look at the rise of fascism in America between the first and second world wars. Father Conklin and the German American Bund had thousands of followers, using only radio - not TV, no internet, and no social media.
We face an organized and well-funded enemy while most Americans are not paying attention to the bigger picture. We are concerned with quarterly results while the enemy is taking the long games.
Yes, I use the word enemy because this is not a Republican versus Democrat political debate. This is a war for the future of our democracy. To think it is any less is to concede victory to those who would destroy our democracy.
I tend to agree that the movement will persist, because the perception among many that they have been "abandoned" and that the game is fundamentally rigged against them (not without some merit), persists. And nobody left or center recognizes, let alone works to address, these grievances. They should. Anything and everything is on the table for a coalition that feels playing by the rules is a sucker's game and the cause of their misery.
Where I tend to disagree with you is that I think we have already entered the civil war aspect. Once Trump supporters acted on their belief that threats, intimidation, and violence were acceptable (and a way to win), we've entered the battle. The only way to disabuse them of this notion is to use every method to stop them - political, legal, and physical. In 2017, I would totally have agreed with you. Today, the landscape is radically different.
This doesn't mean we are destined for a bloody conflict, but we cannot pretend that the conflict is not in a physical way.
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't a real civil war require that our armed forces be split at the highest levels?
The scenarios outlined of potential intra-city or city-suburbs conflict are just skirmishes easily put down by the National Guard, as long as the military brass remains unified.
Didn't generals put out a statement of unity before the last presidential elections? Didn't labor and corporate CEOs strike behind-the-scenes deals to maintain public order? (see Time Magazine, Feb 4, 2021).
In any sort of civil unrest, the economy is drastically affected. I cannot believe that Capitalist power brokers, as well as our excellent military brass will allow any real and prolonged conflict. At least, I hope not, because if it came to mano-a-mano combat, my Democrat friends would be easily out-gunned by my Republican friends, who have been hunting and preparing with misty dreams of battle since they lost the South. So, message to Dems: unless you know how to shoot, and have lots of guns & ammo, you need to cool it on Twitter.
But, seriously, without the top generals splitting there is no Civil War. (Is anyone taking their temperature?).
We all (including Garland) need to wait until the November elections -- if Trump's chosen people lose their races we will know he's now too weak to ever win again -- and, we can just let him be put out to pasture at Mar-a-Lago after being stripped of any classified documents. The dude is old, he'll be dead soon enough and there's no one else who inspires his level of fervent devotion, not even DeSantis.
So, it seems I partially agree with Mr. Linker, Justice/Garland needs to cool it -- for now.
As for analogies to WW2, and Chamberlain and Nazis and all the other stupidities being bandied about -- these twitter folks are ridiculous. We are not at war, we haven't even had preliminary guerilla battles, nor destabilizing little bombs. And, real civil wars are usually about money (the South and their $billions in slaves). There's no money being fought over now.
For those of us who have lived through a civil war/revolution, or have heard stories from our parents, you folks all sound ridiculous -- because Americans today are a generally complacent, over-weight lot, willing to do battle online and absolutely clueless about the sheer courage and insanity (and physical endurance) required for any war against your neighbors and friends. The Jan 6th idiots at the Capital: they were a bunch of mostly over-the-hill, clueless dudes who Steven Colbert rightly called something like "dads who lost custody".
Get real Americans, you're too fat, rich and complacent on your cell phones to be willing or able to kill your neighbors, fellow Americans, in cold blood.
Cool down the rhetoric & stop the bullshit. There are no winners in war among brothers.
You’ve addressed one of my main concerns. I haven’t a clue of what Donald Trump is guilty of that would require prosecution and incarceration. Since I’m just an everyday Joette, it would seem to me that his financial shenanigans most likely to prosecutable. Everything else he’s done is politically explainable or plausibly denial-able.
Anyway, I’m with you. Prosecution under a Democratic administration would lead to more hearings and prosecutions under Republican administration. It is the biggest reason that the second impeachment should have happened. They should have spit him out of the federal government but the Republicans were too scared of their own base.
I’ve tried and tried to see a way around it but I can’t. The best way to defeat him is ...well... to defeat him and his handpicked candidates at the polls.
Let Garland do his job and make a decision to prosecute or not based on (1) the evidence, which is not all in, and the law in light of the evidence. In other words, do the right thing. Speculation about the effect prosecution may have on the country is just punditry. But if Garland backs off of doing the right thing because of the threat of violence, then we have already lost what we are trying to save.
Damon, I largely agree. But I'm sorry you missed an opportunity to denounce the Electoral College, which every responsible commentator should do at every opportunity.
And in the meantime, Biden hands out $10,000 "I forgive you" valentines to a population which is probably least likely to overlap with the Trump grievance group that I can think of. This won't cause them to feel ever more convinced they're being frozen out of society and that the game is rigged against them much, I'm sure...
We need to stop wasting our time and energy playing cat and mouse with Trump, and focus on addressing the grievances of the group that fuels him. He will wither under this scenario, and the political temperature of the nation will subside. This can and must be done without alienating the left. It needs to begin with a politician (so far, only Yang, but he has his political deficiencies) who clearly recognizes these grievances as in large part legitimate and worth solving. (I am not speaking, of course, about the white nationalist fringe, whose grievances are wholly illegitimate and cannot and should not be addressed.) Hint: calling them "deplorables" is a bad start.
Damon--if every move is so fraught with dangers (and I agree that they all are), why not do both? Why not strive--and urge our friends to strive--to vote Trump and Trumpists out of office, all the while pushing for Trump to be held accountable, as anyone would, to the law (wherever that leads)?
You have outlined all the dangers of doing the latter--but consider the dangers that lurk via the voting method: At the moment, Republican political players all over the country have been scurrying to gain control of state legislatures and other state offices and positions connected to voting, as well as gerrymandering like mad, in order to gain unprecedented control over future votes. Just because a majority may not vote for Trump or Trumpists does not guarantee any longer that that majority voice will prevail in the final voting results.
As for the possibility that Trump did not actually commit any crimes: there is at least one of his former actions that appears already to be criminal: the telephone call--caught on tape--to Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, urging a "re-organization" of the voting results in Trump's favor in that state. I have heard a number of legal experts (which I am not) in the media say that this, in itself, is a crime and indictable (interference with an election--I don't know the legal term for it or the statute it crosses). Media personalities then asked experts if this alone would be enough to issue an indictment, and the answer was "yes"--but that officials are proceeding very cautiously so there will be no technical foul-ups down the road that will make for a hung trial or something like that.
And--once again, as I have said in a former post on this site, I make a plea for essential intangibles: if Trump is not held to the same legal standards as anyone else, we risk losing the trust in the system that the even greater number of citizens who did not vote for Trump would naturally hold--and a Lliberal Democratic order cannot afford to lose such a large pool of trust because that is the glue which holds the system together, intangible as it is. We have already seen of late all the unexpected grey areas in the Constitution which have enabled manipulation by Trump and company. In this connection, in his debate with Mona Charen on the advisability of indicting Trump or not, well-known political commentator Charlie Sykes has noted "Trump has exposed the flaw in our constitutional order, which, we now learn, is largely based upon an honor code." -- Honor, like trust, is an intangible and thus hard to grapple with--but without these intangibles working for a large number of people, what will happen? Will we then fall into: a populist order? (which is what a number of political theorists think is coming, anyway).
I am not someone who used the Munich appeasement analogy with respect to your position regarding potential indictment of Trump, because I think it is too much of a knee-jerk reaction, but I do not think that someone making the analogy is an idiot for doing so. A disappointing response to those who disagree with you.
Maybe I should have used a softer adjective than "idiotic." My irritation grows out of being called Neville Chamberlain hundreds of times with no additional argument included, as if that alone should be considered a fatal blow. I don't think it passes muster. I hope the line of argument in the first section of this post stands with or without this one offending word.
At one point it seemed you thought the search itself was a bad move. Do you still think that?
I never said that. See my just-posted comment in response to Judd Kahn.
I can understand your irritation. I think the Munich analogy is often ill-used, because I think it is impossible to separate it from the 20-20 hindsight of what it led to and who Hitler turned out to be, because it is all too easy to forget how war-weary Europe was after WWI ending only 20 years before, and because there are probably analogies in which taking a softer line led to a positive result, which have gotten lost to history.
I don't view you as appeasing Trump. You are correct about the fact that so far Trump has not been accused, let alone indicted, of any crime. It certainly appears that he broke the law in taking documents with him to FL. I would be OK with a deal that has Biden pardon him of any federal crimes with the proviso Trump is barred from seeking or holding any office. Then the question becomes would Trump accept such a deal? If the crimes were serious enough, and the evidence overwhelming, he might. Also, if he were told he would be imprisoned as a flight risk, that might convince him to accept such a deal. We are in uncharted waters, with no good ideas on how to navigate. I do agree that losing at the polls would be ideal, but that, like all possible outcomes, carries grave risk. One last point is that GA and NY are pusuing investigations of wrongdoing as well, si even if DOJ decides not to prosecute, Trump still might go to jail.
FTR, I have no objection to indicting him in state court. I don't think that carries the same risk as a federal indictment and trial.
I agree. But even that carries risks. If his indicted in a state court, and then acquitted, he would scream witch hunt and full exonerated at the top of his lungs. If convicted, I think that would not disqualify him from running for president, which would be another huge can of worms.
Doesn't the argument on whether or not to prosecute depend on there being something clearly indictable to begin with. If there isn't, or if it's simply ambiguous, I can't see Garland prosecuting -- nor should he. The question is -- should Garland refrain from prosecuting a case whose merits are clear, serious and undeniable, a case he would prosecute against anyone else. Someone suggested that if there is a decision to prosecute, Biden should then step in to pardon. That may be the best of the bad alternatives.
From reading your posts and editorial on this issue I get the feeling that you're a little less alarmed by Trump the individual than many of your readers, including me. That may account for some of the disconnect. The issue isn't simply polarization -- it's the man uniquely capable of stoking rage and amplifying it, who's succeeded in transforming his party in his very frightening image. The Democrats, for all their potential foolishness, wouldn't have stormed the capitol in an analogous situation because they don't have a Trump at their head.
I went to school with a guy named Nevets Enitnatsnoc. 😊
Sounds like a good guy -- probably a distant cousin
Agree with all of your points. If the Dems who responded to the NYT opinion are focused on seeing Trump in jail, if he were prosecuted, convicted and all appeals exhausted, which is a long, long way ahead, that focus is misplaced.
Re the pardon - I read somewhere that the Nixon pardon included a promise from him not to run again. That would be completely satisfactory to me. I don't have to see him in jail. I just need to see him investigated and if, as you said, and if the facts and the law are clear, see him charged. Then pardoned with the stipulation he never run for office again.
Question, not rhetorical. Do you think the government, especially Garland, made the right decision in recovering the documents, including a search warrant when other means seem to have been insufficient?
Yes, and I said as much on the "Beg to Differ" podcast last week. If Trump took classified documents with him when he left the White House and Garland requested they be returned and then Trump refused, he likely had no choice but to execute a search warrant to retrieve them. From the moment the warrant was executed/the raid took place, I've thought and written that "the theatrics of the event served as a preliminary test of how the country will respond to any effort by law enforcement to prosecute Trump." https://damonlinker.substack.com/p/america-is-already-failing-the-trump
That doesn't mean the event was unjustified. Just that it gave us a glimpse of what the reaction to far more precipitous actions, like indictment and a trial, would be.
I appreciate you publicly verbalizing an uncertainty and feeling of unease that I've had for a long time... has DJT definitely broken any laws? I acknowledge that I certainly don't know - and per your report, it seems some legal scholars are likewise uncertain.
Still, seemingly every time I try to engage with MAGA-ites, it deteriorates into talking points stemming from a lack of shared facts and priorities. Honestly, I really don't care if Hunter Biden profited off his last name - so long as Joe Biden didn't grant favors and act against the interest of the country in order to benefit his son. However, the fact that MAGA-ites hold that up as an example of unpunished corruption with all that DJT did WHILE POTUS (e.g. blatant nepotism, lack of financial disclosures, failure to establish a blind trust, etc) leaves me incredulous and highly suspicious of entirely motivated reasoning on the part of my interlocutor.
My concern is your factual examination of the situation doesn't seem to give much, if any weight, to the emotional aspect of the question. Trump has provided cover and support to the worst types of people in our country. He has gathered them to his position, not by logic or facts, but by playing on their fears. He has identified and magnified the fears of many rural voters while enabling many wealthy people to use these fears for their advantage. We have only brushed the surface of how religion plays into this situation.
Whether or not we proceed with an indictment of Trump, the civil war has already started. Jan 6th was the opening battle, and it will continue, even after he has passed from the scene. People treat Trump as a one-off, but he isn't. He is merely the tip of the spear, and others will follow. This civil war will not be fought between armies; it will be a guerilla action against our federal institutions - threats against government workers, attacks on law enforcement personnel and judges. These actions have already started and will only become more frequent.
One possible advantage of prosecuting Trump would be the precedent we establish for the next want-to-be dictator. It could establish a legal basis for moving against the next person who openly despises our laws and institutions.
In the end, I don't think it matters one way or the other; his supporters will follow him regardless of any legal actions taken against him. I don't believe the forces opposing Trump have a plan or a unified vision, but Trump's people do. They hide under the "conservatism" label, but their goals are spelled out as "White Christian Nationalism." The ultimate goal is to turn America into a white Christian theocracy.
The analogy with Hitler is not even close. Still, many of Hitler's tactics are being used - blame others for your problems, arm yourselves for the coming battle, and America First sounds like a rallying cry Hitler used to unify the public behind him. Trump's rallies are mini-versions of Hitler's rallies. We are fortunate that Trump is nowhere near Hitler's ability at public speaking.
We have only to look at the rise of fascism in America between the first and second world wars. Father Conklin and the German American Bund had thousands of followers, using only radio - not TV, no internet, and no social media.
We face an organized and well-funded enemy while most Americans are not paying attention to the bigger picture. We are concerned with quarterly results while the enemy is taking the long games.
Yes, I use the word enemy because this is not a Republican versus Democrat political debate. This is a war for the future of our democracy. To think it is any less is to concede victory to those who would destroy our democracy.
I tend to agree that the movement will persist, because the perception among many that they have been "abandoned" and that the game is fundamentally rigged against them (not without some merit), persists. And nobody left or center recognizes, let alone works to address, these grievances. They should. Anything and everything is on the table for a coalition that feels playing by the rules is a sucker's game and the cause of their misery.
Where I tend to disagree with you is that I think we have already entered the civil war aspect. Once Trump supporters acted on their belief that threats, intimidation, and violence were acceptable (and a way to win), we've entered the battle. The only way to disabuse them of this notion is to use every method to stop them - political, legal, and physical. In 2017, I would totally have agreed with you. Today, the landscape is radically different.
This doesn't mean we are destined for a bloody conflict, but we cannot pretend that the conflict is not in a physical way.
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't a real civil war require that our armed forces be split at the highest levels?
The scenarios outlined of potential intra-city or city-suburbs conflict are just skirmishes easily put down by the National Guard, as long as the military brass remains unified.
Didn't generals put out a statement of unity before the last presidential elections? Didn't labor and corporate CEOs strike behind-the-scenes deals to maintain public order? (see Time Magazine, Feb 4, 2021).
In any sort of civil unrest, the economy is drastically affected. I cannot believe that Capitalist power brokers, as well as our excellent military brass will allow any real and prolonged conflict. At least, I hope not, because if it came to mano-a-mano combat, my Democrat friends would be easily out-gunned by my Republican friends, who have been hunting and preparing with misty dreams of battle since they lost the South. So, message to Dems: unless you know how to shoot, and have lots of guns & ammo, you need to cool it on Twitter.
But, seriously, without the top generals splitting there is no Civil War. (Is anyone taking their temperature?).
We all (including Garland) need to wait until the November elections -- if Trump's chosen people lose their races we will know he's now too weak to ever win again -- and, we can just let him be put out to pasture at Mar-a-Lago after being stripped of any classified documents. The dude is old, he'll be dead soon enough and there's no one else who inspires his level of fervent devotion, not even DeSantis.
So, it seems I partially agree with Mr. Linker, Justice/Garland needs to cool it -- for now.
As for analogies to WW2, and Chamberlain and Nazis and all the other stupidities being bandied about -- these twitter folks are ridiculous. We are not at war, we haven't even had preliminary guerilla battles, nor destabilizing little bombs. And, real civil wars are usually about money (the South and their $billions in slaves). There's no money being fought over now.
For those of us who have lived through a civil war/revolution, or have heard stories from our parents, you folks all sound ridiculous -- because Americans today are a generally complacent, over-weight lot, willing to do battle online and absolutely clueless about the sheer courage and insanity (and physical endurance) required for any war against your neighbors and friends. The Jan 6th idiots at the Capital: they were a bunch of mostly over-the-hill, clueless dudes who Steven Colbert rightly called something like "dads who lost custody".
Get real Americans, you're too fat, rich and complacent on your cell phones to be willing or able to kill your neighbors, fellow Americans, in cold blood.
Cool down the rhetoric & stop the bullshit. There are no winners in war among brothers.
All well said, esp "without the top generals splitting there is no Civil War."
You’ve addressed one of my main concerns. I haven’t a clue of what Donald Trump is guilty of that would require prosecution and incarceration. Since I’m just an everyday Joette, it would seem to me that his financial shenanigans most likely to prosecutable. Everything else he’s done is politically explainable or plausibly denial-able.
Anyway, I’m with you. Prosecution under a Democratic administration would lead to more hearings and prosecutions under Republican administration. It is the biggest reason that the second impeachment should have happened. They should have spit him out of the federal government but the Republicans were too scared of their own base.
I’ve tried and tried to see a way around it but I can’t. The best way to defeat him is ...well... to defeat him and his handpicked candidates at the polls.
Let Garland do his job and make a decision to prosecute or not based on (1) the evidence, which is not all in, and the law in light of the evidence. In other words, do the right thing. Speculation about the effect prosecution may have on the country is just punditry. But if Garland backs off of doing the right thing because of the threat of violence, then we have already lost what we are trying to save.
Damon, I largely agree. But I'm sorry you missed an opportunity to denounce the Electoral College, which every responsible commentator should do at every opportunity.
And in the meantime, Biden hands out $10,000 "I forgive you" valentines to a population which is probably least likely to overlap with the Trump grievance group that I can think of. This won't cause them to feel ever more convinced they're being frozen out of society and that the game is rigged against them much, I'm sure...
We need to stop wasting our time and energy playing cat and mouse with Trump, and focus on addressing the grievances of the group that fuels him. He will wither under this scenario, and the political temperature of the nation will subside. This can and must be done without alienating the left. It needs to begin with a politician (so far, only Yang, but he has his political deficiencies) who clearly recognizes these grievances as in large part legitimate and worth solving. (I am not speaking, of course, about the white nationalist fringe, whose grievances are wholly illegitimate and cannot and should not be addressed.) Hint: calling them "deplorables" is a bad start.
Damon--if every move is so fraught with dangers (and I agree that they all are), why not do both? Why not strive--and urge our friends to strive--to vote Trump and Trumpists out of office, all the while pushing for Trump to be held accountable, as anyone would, to the law (wherever that leads)?
You have outlined all the dangers of doing the latter--but consider the dangers that lurk via the voting method: At the moment, Republican political players all over the country have been scurrying to gain control of state legislatures and other state offices and positions connected to voting, as well as gerrymandering like mad, in order to gain unprecedented control over future votes. Just because a majority may not vote for Trump or Trumpists does not guarantee any longer that that majority voice will prevail in the final voting results.
As for the possibility that Trump did not actually commit any crimes: there is at least one of his former actions that appears already to be criminal: the telephone call--caught on tape--to Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, urging a "re-organization" of the voting results in Trump's favor in that state. I have heard a number of legal experts (which I am not) in the media say that this, in itself, is a crime and indictable (interference with an election--I don't know the legal term for it or the statute it crosses). Media personalities then asked experts if this alone would be enough to issue an indictment, and the answer was "yes"--but that officials are proceeding very cautiously so there will be no technical foul-ups down the road that will make for a hung trial or something like that.
And--once again, as I have said in a former post on this site, I make a plea for essential intangibles: if Trump is not held to the same legal standards as anyone else, we risk losing the trust in the system that the even greater number of citizens who did not vote for Trump would naturally hold--and a Lliberal Democratic order cannot afford to lose such a large pool of trust because that is the glue which holds the system together, intangible as it is. We have already seen of late all the unexpected grey areas in the Constitution which have enabled manipulation by Trump and company. In this connection, in his debate with Mona Charen on the advisability of indicting Trump or not, well-known political commentator Charlie Sykes has noted "Trump has exposed the flaw in our constitutional order, which, we now learn, is largely based upon an honor code." -- Honor, like trust, is an intangible and thus hard to grapple with--but without these intangibles working for a large number of people, what will happen? Will we then fall into: a populist order? (which is what a number of political theorists think is coming, anyway).
(For those interested, the Sykes/Charren debate can be read here: https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/to-charge-or-not-to-charge -- and -- here: https://www.thebulwark.com/try-trump-at-the-ballot-box-not-in-court/ )