To indict or not to indict, that is the question?

[kentuck]

Nobody knows what the DOJ is going to do? Some are sure that Merrick Garland is doing his job in a slow, methodical manner and he will seek criminal accountability for the attack of January 6th, beyond just the foot soldiers. Some are not so sure. Some have already given up.

The question that confronts the DOJ is whether or not to indict Donald J Trump, former president of the United States? Will it cause more harm than good? Will it further divide the nation?

The more important question, in my opinion, is what damage will be done if he is not indicted? After all, an indictment and a charge is not a guilty verdict. A person has the opportunity to acquit themselves in a court of law if they are indicted and charged with a crime.

But, if that option is taken away by deciding that it would be harmful for the nation and would divide our nation to the point of violence, then the lack of an indictment might be the worst decision that could be made?

There can be no shortcuts in the pursuit of justice in a case so important to the country.

[brooklynite]

1. Indict him for what?

I'm not convinced there's a evidentiary case against him, at least as far as January 6 goes.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. Agree

I have yet to see any evidence he did anything illegal on January 6th. Planning the rally was legal, talking about fighting was legal, sending the mob to the Capitol was also legal. Unless they have evidence Trump helped plan the assault on the Capitol in detail, and that he ordered the crimes that took place there, there is nothing to indict on.

What he did should have been political suicide, but it's still not a crime. The burden of proof is incredible high. Even if people close to him committed crimes, it will be near impossible to determine Trump's level of involvement.

Looks like all that's left is Georgia for Trump to face any legal consequences.

[fightforfreedom]

11. Attempting to stop congress, the vice president from counting the votes is a felony.

How can you say you have not seen any evidence? The evidence is overwhelming. We all watched it on TV. The evidence against Trump is this, 187 minutes. That's how long he did nothing as he watched the attack on the capital. There is evidence of members of congress calling him. Whitehouse staff, his family calling to stop the attack. He refused, he did nothing. That is absolute proof he wanted it to happen. Trump is guilty as hell and it can be proven in a court of law.

By the way, a presidents chief of staff who is involved in a crime, a coup, pretty much guarantees the president is involved.

[kentuck]

13. I'm sure there is more evidence we have not seen or heard yet...

...that will come out in the next few weeks. Go big or go home - seditious conspiracy.

[Johnny2X2X]

14. Wanting it to happen isn't a crime

It was not a crime for Trump to sit and cheer it on. Chief of Staff being involved "pretty much guarantees the president is involved." Good luck having that as evidence to charge with a crime.

This is going no where. But the public hearings will be important none the less.

What Meadows and all the rest will say is what they said that day, "we told them to go to the Capitol and make a lot of noise to pressure the Congress people inside to not certify the results." That's not illegal. Then they'll say, there was no way we could have known they'd over run the Capitol with violence.

[kentuck]

15. It doesn't have to happen to be a conspiracy.

"there was no way we could have known they'd over run the Capitol with violence."

I think there is evidence that proves that was exactly their intent. They wanted to stop the electoral count by whatever means.

[gab13by13]

16. Liz Cheney is a lawyer, she disagrees with you,

and Liz Cheney has more facts than we have. She would not have gone on national TV and claim that Trump was guilty of impeding an official act of Congress without being able to back up that claim.

[Emile]

19. Orchestrating an insurrection and inciting a riot are crimes.

I know, I'm not suppose to believe my lying two eyes and what I witnessed on Jan 6.

[kentuck]

20. Their intent was to stop the electoral vote.

Someone orchestrated it. If not Trump, then who?

It is a crime.

[Emile]

21. Exactly!

[fightforfreedom]

22. It is illegal, sorry but you are wrong.

There is a lot more evidence besides the attack on the capital. Trump was attempting to stop the count in many different ways and it worked for a while. Trump was also tweeting during the attack going after Pence. Why were his voters chanting hang Pence? That was caused by Trump. Trump was going after Pence to stop the count before Jan 6th.

Trump wanted to stop the vote count. He attempted to stop the vote count. That is a felony, he is guilty.

[kentuck]

3. It has been said that a "Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich".

I say, "seditious conspiracy". Most people believe that to be the case and they see the evidence, however circumstantial. Let him clear his name in a court of law. All the evidence, from those that have already been charged, point to the White House. Somebody was leading the attempted coup.

Personally, I think if they throw the book at Mark Meadows, the dominoes will start to fall.

(By the way, former AG Eric Holder and Laurence Tribe have come out in the last couple of days in favor of indictment)

[brooklynite]

4. a "Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich".

So you want him indicted whether there's a solid case or not? That's a terrible idea.

Let him clear his name in a court of law.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

[kentuck]

5. Many people believe there is enough evidence to charge him with a crime.

Granted, we may not know all the facts yet but that doesn't mean they don't exist. When the dam breaks, get out of the way.

[gab13by13]

17. Liz Cheney publicly stated that Trump should be prosecuted for

impeding an official act of Congress. She has more facts than we have. Remember, she was the #4 Republican, she was involved in meetings with McCarthy. If Liz Cheney says Trump should be prosecuted, that's good enough for me.

[kentuck]

18. I'm happy she is on the Committee.

On January 6th, even Trump supporters knew he was guilty. Since then, they have tried to wash the stench off him.

The evidence is there. The only thing missing is the will.

[hamsterjill]

24. Seems some posters are now happy with letting Trump off.

Makes one go “hmmmmmmm”, doesn’t it?

I am not happy that a traitor may not see justice. The whole concept of a law and order society is that no one is above the law. Take that away and law and order crumbles.

[gab13by13]

6. Liz Cheney spelled out months ago what to indict Trump for,

she read the statute on TV. Google is your friend for people who didn't get to watch Liz.

[Emile]

7. +1 Lock Him Up!

[gab13by13]

9. I mean really,

WTF, at least investigate him. The brave Fulton county DA has a special grand jury convened right now and is investigating Trump. I just wish that our DOJ had half the guts that brave lady has. She has to have extra police protection, has had to buy her prosecutors bullet proof vests and yet she marches on. Too bad Garland didn't pursue a parallel investigation, DOJ has more clout has more resources than the Fulton county DA. The Fulton County DA has her work cut out for her proving criminal intent, but at least she is doing the investigation.

[gab13by13]

8. Don't back down Kentuck,

your post is spot on, fantastic analogy.

So Garland is an institutionalist and he worries that indicting Trump will damage our democratic institutions. So Garland is not going to even investigate Republican politicians, former Republican cabinet members, former presidents because it concerns him that will damage our democratic institutions.

Not investigating, indicting, convicting people who attempted to overthrow our democratic government will give them license to do it again. Garland has the foolish notion that prosecuting former politicians is partisan, is bad for the country so by not holding those people accountable, those people who are actively working to end our democratic form of government we are giving the green light to the fascists, to the autocrats, and eventual dictators who will rule America.

By the bye, Garland already had the evidence to indict and convict Trump, Mueller laid all the ducks out in a row.
Garland also failed to prosecute the Cyber Ninjas who violated state and federal election laws.

[kentuck]

10. Yes, it is a puzzle to why the Cyber Ninjas were able to get away with what they did.

It was so blatantly political.

[gab13by13]

12. They were a fake pro-Trump company with a mailbox for an office.

They violated federal election law, Title 52. They were given access to ballots, voter information, election material and equipment that were to remain in the possession of election officials for 22 months. Not prosecuting them allowed the fraudits to spread across the country and to promote the Big Lie.