What is the best approach for dealing with Trump?

[Xelor]

I'm not interested in achieving predicatedly positive or negative outcomes. I merely want the same jurisprudential process that everyone else must undergo be the one Trump must. To my mind, that means:

1. DoJ investigation finds what it finds and either believes extant and in prosecutors' possession is enough evidence to charge (or not) Trump with criminally culpable crimes and obtain a conviction.
   • DoJ thinks it hasn't enough evidence to charge and obtain conviction:
     • DoJ makes all evidence public and that's that.
   • DoJ thinks it has enough evidence to charge and obtain conviction:
     1. DoJ rescinds "non-indictment" memorandum.
     2. Jurisprudential process proceeds as it does with everyone else and is carried out:
        • Charges levied, pre-trial motions made, bail hearing, discovery, plea bargaining, jury selection, etc.
        • Caveat: Court "quiets" the prosecution and defense so the matter, from the moment charges are read, plays out in criminal court of law and not in the court of public opinion.

Why do I favor the approach above? Because if a POTUS be thus convicted, there becomes no question about whether the Congress must remove him from office. The POTUS will indeed have been convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor; thus the "shall be removed from office..." clause, after such a conviction, is a matter of politics, but rather is merely a matter of the Senate performing the action the Constitution stipulates in the wake of a POTUS being convicted of high crimes or misdemeanors....that is the Senate wouldn't have any choice in whether to remove a POTUS from office. Simply put, the less politics that are involved in such a matter, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cardinal]

I do not. I prefer to do some research on that as I have only your word

Nope, not my word; Giuliani's. You're going to have to shift your position to "Trump's crime doesn't matter to me" now.

 

[RetiredUSN]

It's always so refreshing to see someone admit that he doesn't care about America due to his partisan hatred of the other party.

No, actually....it's sad.

Nice try.

I don't belong to a party.

If you actually think Trump is America's worst problem, then you need to get out more.

 

[Masterhawk]

Republican Senators are increasingly going on record making it clear that crimes are not enough to convince them that Trump is unfit for office, thereby disqualifying themselves, and the broader Conservative public at large, from serious discussion regarding Trump's crimes and his defrauding of the American people. But more practically, it means that conviction through impeachment is not possible.

Nonetheless, what do you feel is the best approach for dealing with Trump?

1. Impeachment. Sure, this won't result in conviction, but I feel Democrats' decision to impeach would make an important statement regarding the rule of law and the sanctity of our elections. Not impeaching would, in my opinion, cede the discussion altogether to Republicans' ambiguous, ever-shifting and disingenuous standards for what would be prosecutable or impeachable offenses.

2. Trump resigns in return for no impeachment and no indictment. This can be a demoralizing option since justice won't be served, but you have to consider your priorities. Is it more important that Trump leave office as soon as possible, thus sparing the country additional trauma? Or is it more important to see him finish out his term and maybe receive justice at the end of it? There is no obvious answer to this since by this point the need to see him gone is about as great as the need to see justice served.

3. Indictment. It is Neal Katyal's legal opinion that the statute of limitations would be "tolled." What this means is that the SoL would be extended so that Trump can be indicted once he's out of office. There is additional discussion leading Renato Mariotti and Katyal to agree that indictment while he's in office would be possible; he just couldn't be tried in court until he leaves office. Assuming indictment while he's still in office was possible and was used, remember that this is likely to be challenged in court for many months before it was resolved. If you choose this option, be sure to remember that a successful indictment is purely theoretical, has never been tested, and even if successful he would not be tried until he leaves office.

You can listen to the discussion between Katyal and Mariotti (December 8) here: https://ontopicpodcast.simplecast.fm/

While deciding on which option best suits you, be sure to remember that it is almost certainly Pence's fate to pardon Trump regardless of anything that happens.

You: "But none of these options are all that great! None of them offer a guaranteed or universally positive outcome!"
Me: "Trump was elected President; a universally positive outcome doesn't exist."

I hope you realize that any of these three options will leave Mike Pence as the new president (unless you can somehow get both him and Trump in one swoop). Of course, that may not be a problem if you view Pence as the lesser of two evils.

 

[Cardinal]

I hope you realize that any of these three options will leave Mike Pence as the new president (unless you can somehow get both him and Trump in one swoop). Of course, that may not be a problem if you view Pence as the lesser of two evils.

Thank you. Until you responded to me I had no idea that there was a “line of succession” or how it worked.

 

[Grand Mal]

None of your options will happen.

The fact that you even consider them is dreaming, hoping, praying, etc.

You could bet on it. You'll get 6/4 for next year, 5/2 for the year after.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/year-in-which-trump-will-be-impeached

Those bookies are no fools. They say there's a good chance.

 

[antiquity]

Just another Democrat junk poll.

Who is "disqualified" are all the Democratic members of Congress claiming they will vote for impeachment and removal even before ANY evidence of any crime has even been offered.

Maxine Waters is the new talking head of the democratic party

 

[earthworm]

Another "opinion" with nothing as back-up. Two plus years of conservative domination in our government, yet nothing was done against Mrs Clinton - and for good reason .

 

[earthworm]

What? You really described Hillary to a tee.

Another "opinion" with nothing as back-up. Two plus years of conservative domination in our government, yet nothing was done against Mrs Clinton - and for good reason .

 

[tres borrachos]

Nice try.

I don't belong to a party.

If you actually think Trump is America's worst problem, then you need to get out more.

Yes, I've gotten out enough in 56 years to know a dangerous President when I see one.

Fact.

You're the one who made a partisan post, so spare me your faux outrage.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yes, I've gotten out enough in 56 years to know a dangerous President when I see one.

Fact.

You're the one who made a partisan post, so spare me your faux outrage.

I'm not outraged by any means, and who exactly am I partisan to?

It is you who makes these assumptions. :lamo

 

[rickc]

i say just stand back and watch Trump implode!