I am aghast at the amount of people who are using excuses like a trial might do more damage and setting precedents. The precedent is when there is overwhelming evidence you prosecute, setting a precedent that we don't prosecute Presidents when there is overwhelming evidence that they committed a crime is giving ex-Presidents the rights of kings and I don't see how it can be seen as anything else. It puts them above the law. Also, how can questioning someone publicly about their crimes do more damage than actually enforcing the law and how is it only relevant for EX-Presidents? Sounds like more kings-shit to me.

These excuses are ridiculous and if we weren't talking about rich powerful white men these ideas wouldn't even be entertained.

@redbai I am not in support of this idea. I am undecided. I am merely explaining what I have learned from those advocates. That is why Nixon was pardoned. To unite the nation in moving on. The argument is establishing a precedent. There are good reasons for both on this issue. I am undecided. I have seen what happens when the opposition is pursued in other countries. I think we are open enough that we could do it but even our election integrity is being questioned currently. I am reticent to permit this genii out as we may not ever stuff him back in. Every change of leadership could result in ongoing back & forth of relentless pursuit, back & forth. I lean towards justice. I reticent of the long term effects.

@Mooolah I don't understand what's to be "undecided" about. Pardoning Nixon was stupid and it did nothing to bring America together and I'm sick of the fact that when white men do horrendous things it's time to "move on", but when any non-white male does something they must be punished to the fullest extent of the law to keep people from repeating the crime.

What are the "good reasons" not to prosecute these criminals? No one has given any except that it might set a precedent of throwing white men in jail for committing crimes just like they do everyone else and that's NOT a good reason.

In other countries when the opposition was pursued for political reasons, that is wrong. But saying that you can't go after people who have obviously committed crimes because it might be perceived as political is ridiculous. So no politician can be held accountable for fear of cries of politics; sounds like putting more people above the law to me and it sickens me that people are rolling over and rationalizing it.

FTR, the long term effects of pursuing justice is a better world otherwise why the hell do we bother?

@redbai Because I try to be a realist. We sacrificed going after Nixon so as not to set the precedent. For good or naught. The reason is precedent. They sure as hell would do it to us (ie Clinton), but should we throw the 1st stone & make it worse with unforseen circumstances. It is always better to sacrifice for the nation. I totally understand your position. I'd would love to see HIM hang. Not just in my dreams. But if the nation suffers with violence on a mass scale, perhaps we make that sacrifice for peace. I don't know the answer. No man is above the law is a concept. It is not a practice. This is not a matter for revenge. I hope we get him on anything not politically related. Such as inflating his property values in order to get a larger loan etc. I am hoping that many MAGAs disband when he betrays them even more than he did. Extremists will always be an issue. Preventing their violence is my goal. I think his family may flee to Moscow. That would be delightful. You may be tired of rich man's white privilege as I. It will take decades to eradicate from the culture. Eradicating self interest may not ever occur as it is engrained in our species. Altruism is rare. I would like to see some bankers & financial institutors in prison for the financial collapse.

@Mooolah "WE" didn't sacrifice Nixon, crooked politicians pardoned him and I thought it was just a way to get another white man off for his crimes. What was the precedent, that powerful white men can break the law with impunity and we just have to take it? Again, kingshit and we're not supposed to have them in America.

The idea that letting a corrupt POTUS get away with attempting to take over the country is "realistic" is disgusting and wrong. You're basically saying that the POTUS can commit crimes, even against the country, and we just have to take it. I've never heard such bullshit in my life.

Prosecuting someone for crimes is not "revenge" and I never said anything about revenge. Justice is not revenge. And FTR, I'm still aghast and sickened by your position. You seem to be saying we are powerless and have to accept the fact that powerful white men shouldn't have to pay for their crimes because of some ambiguous fear.

@redbai Unforseen concequences. Precedent. Nothing more. What's best for the nation is in question. & I don't know the answer. Once again I feel your wrath. I don't have hindsight yet as we are in the midst of a long journey towards some kind of conclusion. The history is just being written.

@Mooolah There is no "precedent" as all that happened was that Nixon broke the law and they let him off. Pardons are not precedent. How is "unforeseen consequences" any different than "ambiguous fear" and why should that keep the country for seeking justice after a coup attempt? Not doing so sets a "precedent" that coup attempts aren't against the law in America and that's just dumb.

@redbai You make good arguments. I totally understand . I feel the same. But I have learned not to make decisions with my feelings. The investigators have to do this in an exemplary fashion. I temper my anger & rage letting the wheels grind slowly towards justice. I don't want him to croak before he goes to trial which I hope happens....I think. More than anything he can not come to power again. I hope the virus cleans out their ranks by November. This is a reckoning. PS. One must begin at the bottom to secure plea deals in order to go up the ladder of culpability. 'Ya need testimony from the lower ranks. Carrot & stick to get the head of the rotting fish. Capone on tax evasion. President-You-Know-Who with testamony from plea deals.

@Mooolah "But I have learned not to make decisions with my feelings."

If you're implying that I have you're just being insulting. Where have I appealed to "feelings"? I'm angry but that anger has nothing to do with the substance or validity of my arguments and I'm both emotionally and intellectually capable of separate the two.

There is evidence in the public record that Trump broke the law requesting votes be found for him. The Mueller Report details exactly how the ex-POTUS obstructed justice. Bannon and others refused to give over documents and testify to congress. None of that has anything to do with my feelings. There is no need for "plea deals" as they have Trump ON TAPE asking a Sec of State to "find votes". Why do they need someone from below to go up the ladder to verify that? Mueller did the investigation regarding the obstruction of justice, they don't need anything else to prosecute those 10 crimes because the investigation has already been done. There's even a book of Mueller's report that anyone can buy which details exactly how Trump obstructed justice so that there is no question. It is a public FACT that Bannon and other cohorts of Trump have refused to testify before congress after having been legally summoned. Peter Navarro described Trump allies' plans to decertify the 2020 election results to MSNBC. That's against the law. What testimony from the lower echelons are needed to verify that which is PUBLIC RECORD?

All I'm reading are excuses not to throw rich, powerful, white men in jail for their crimes. You have offered nothing but "feelings" as arguments. You're concerned about "Unforeseen consequences" (i.e. fear, an emotion) and made up precedents that have no basis in fact. There is simply no honorable, ethical or moral argument for not tossing these traitors into jail. If there was one they would be making it instead of spreading "The Big Lie".

I'm not buying that everyone is just supposed to be scared about what would happen if they actually put rich white men in jail for crimes they committed. That response is pathetic and I'm willing to take the chance of whatever chaos that may occur as a result of pursuing justice. I'm not scared of white racists getting mad because their leaders have been put in jail.

@redbai Again I am with you. We disagree on how to go forth in pursuing corruption. "Ya gotta get people to testify against "him". 'Ya do that by going up the stream with plea deals to get the rotting fish head. We are striving for a more perfect union & I would like to see some financial architects of the crash in 2008 behind bars. 15 years & nothing has changed so I get your frustration. We have to keep working towards Dr. King's dream. Its ponderous. Democracy is flawed. It is not perfect. But the idea is to strive to be. I worry about the military rank & file refusing the orders of our loyal generals. Do not give up the struggle for our cause. Justice & democracy.

"It would not make sense for him to move on this with the select committee's work not yet finished"

Please identify any other crimes that must go through the congressional committee before the perpetrator can be indicted. I'm not sure why this must go through congress before people can be criminally charged and brought to justice. The Muller Report spells out, in detail, obstruction of justice done by the ex-POTUS which are prosecutable RIGHT NOW, why not prosecute him? There is no question about whether or not Bannon didn't show up for a congressional hearing when legally summoned. That's a crime that can be prosecuted RIGHT NOW. No other "investigations" are needed.

Nothing is stopping them from looking for other crimes these traitors may have committed and any new crimes found can be prosecuted while these traitors spend time in jail.

@redbai I never said Garland "must" wait for the select committee. I said it wouldn't make sense for him not to. The intention is to have as strong a case as possible. Criminal process and political optics unfortunately are often out of sync. I won't feel peace until Trump is either dead or rotting in prison (preferably both). I share your hatred and disgust of him and his henchmen. But expecting our preferences to be the guiding light for the Justice Department is a fantasy.

Let's not forget New York Southern District and Georgia are still working on cases against him, too. All of it is too slow,and yes the legal process is frought with problems. But there are far better targets for progressives' frustrations than trying to crucify Garland.

@MikeInBatonRouge I still don't understand your argument. Why would it be better to wait until after the select committee? If the intention is to have as strong a case as possible, then the FBI should be issuing subpoenas not congress. Ignoring those immediately puts a person in jail and not ranting on a podcast about how he's a hero for helping in an attempted coup while the DOJ figures out when they can fit it in their schedule.

Not trusting Garland is not crucifying him. Are we not supposed to question his effectiveness? Are we supposed to just assume he's doing the right thing with absolutely no evidence to even give that implication but his word? Sorry, I'm a black man in the USA and I've listened to words for over 60 years from politicians and law enforcement that have never come to fruition. I'm tired of words, I want proof that these people are actually doing their jobs instead of spooning out excuses and rhetoric until they can say the statute of limitations have run out (as the obstruction of justices charges in the Muller Report will in a few months) and they shrug their shoulders and talk about how there's now nothing that can be done.

@redbai You are right, and good clarification. As I re-read the post, my response would have been more appropriately directed at St-Sinner's comment. You were questioning. He was flat-out declaring the entire process to be a shit-show abject failure, and while that could still turn out to be the case, it is still premature to declare that.

I get the glaring discrepency between how comon folks are slammed by the legal system, abruptly, often without adequate legal representaion or due process, and especially for minorities.

But the problem is systemic. It is precisely because powerful politicians are well-connected and have powerful allies that prosecutors don't dare rush into charges. That have to try to ensure the evidence will withstand the barrage of attacks that are sure to be lobbed. It sucks, but again, Garland did not invent this system. He just has to navigate it. A rapid, over-agressive prosecution without all the details tightly woven is sure to be poked full of holes of doubt claimed to be "reasonable doubt" by the defense.

@MikeInBatonRouge Sorry, but with all due respect all I hear you saying is that white men get special treatment and we just have to deal with it. The reasons sound like facile rationalizations to put off punishing people who have obviously committed crimes and all I see that doing is erode any confidence to be had in the DOJ even more.

Nothing you say justifies not going after these people right now. There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that they committed crimes. One of the idiots actually confessed on MSNBC where he detailed the coup, gave it a name and explained the parts each person was to play in it. They have a phone call of Trump trying to force the Sec of State of Georgia into "finding" votes. If they get off with what is known publicly about their crimes the only downside is that America will have to admit that it's no better than any other country and that money and power is more relevant than a democracy and rule of law. I'd rather America know that than keep pretending that's not the case and ignore one more disgusting fact about itself. The first part of fixing a problem is admitting that it actually exists.

I will call out your cowardice in coming up with pathetic excuses to not make an attempt for justice. But I get it, this is America where making up facile reasons not to throw white men in jail is a time honored trope.

@redbai ( big effing grin ) Yep, my view differed and redbai raised hell. ( another big effing grin )

@yvilletom ... and I still have residence in your head. Kind of fun kicking around in this big empty space.

@redbai It is spacious, and rent--free to leftists like you.

@redbai I patch the places where your head dented a wall.

@yvilletom Oh, sorry. I was waiting for the echo to come from the other side of your head. So you're complaining about the dents in your head. Those were there when I got here, but I'm not in the least bit surprised you're trying to blame your history on someone else and pretending you had nothing to do with it. Classic white racist trope.

@redbai Period.

@yvilletom There's that word again, as if you've demonstrated something. It's a pathetic attempt at being condescending.