DU Poll: Is appointing a special prosecutor a good or bad thing?

[BigmanPigman]

50 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Good
	27 (54%)
	Bad
	13 (26%)
	Not sure at this time
	8 (16%)
	Other
	2 (4%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[LeftInTX]

1. I think it makes good optics

[TDale313]

2. Mixed feelings.

In general, probably a good thing. But part of me is concerned it’s more delays and looking like doing something while not actually indicting Trump or really holding him to account. There’s more than enough to charge him. Just do it already.

[Frasier Balzov]

3. This isn't equal justice.

It should be as routine as what the most humble among us can be expected receive.

[True Dough]

4. Ask me again

in 6 months.

[relayerbob]

5. Absolutely

This guy is good. He's very experienced in this sort of espionage/treason thing. He's free of the political baggage that Garland has, especially whe put between two Presidential candidates. The investigation isn't stopping, it's just getting carried on with MORE intensity and focus. None of this is unanticipated, they were just waiting for Trump to announce (and he did so to delay and burder the DoJ), the new team may already be nearly up to speed with the investigation. Bear in mind the effects of Trump's attempt to use the "Special Master", resulted in his ass being handed to him on a platter. This new gambit,IMO, actually increases the odds he's going to go to jail.

And, for the record, being indicted is irrelevant in Trump's world. MAGA won't care in the least, to the contrary, it will be a positive. He MUST be convicted, if indicted, an acquittal will doom all of us to Trump as President for life.

[former9thward]

6. "He's very experienced in this sort of espionage/treason thing."

Where are you getting that from?

[Pluvious]

12. Some info here

Link to tweet

[former9thward]

13. Thank you but none of that is espionage or treason.

War crimes are far different.

[iemanja]

7. It's unnecessary

The reason for the special prosecutor statute is to avoid a conflict of interest. What conflict of interest does Garland have over this investigation. For the decision to be appropriate, there needs to be one.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

8. I'll be more civil than I was earlier earlier

Seriously, no snark.
Garland is investigating someone who could possibly be his boss in 2 years and 2 months - that does have ethical implications.
Republicans are going to scream witch hunt regardless, but that doesn’t mean the Biden Administration shouldn’t act ethically.
Garland is already treading in uncharted territory and he’s setting precedent for the future - it NEEDS to be done right.

[iemanja]

14. I don't see anything wrong with the DOJ doing its job

I don't share your view that a Democratic-appointed AJ can't prosecute Trump or other Republican politicians. As was pointed out on Chris Hayes tonight, Garland still has oversight over Smith. Garland will still make the decision about whether to prosecute. Having a SP doesn't change that.

[SomedayKindaLove]

9. Hopefully it's like calling in the closer

To get the last three outs.

[Solly Mack]

10. I choose "We'll see".

[mvd]

11. Sounds good but we have been let down before

Waiting to see.

[Emile]

15. Should have had this poll TWO YEARS AGO.

[lees1975]

16. Two years after the crime was committed?

I'm not sure. No matter the outcome, at this point, Trump has been treated with far more deference than an ordinary citizen would be. No one else would have had this kind of freedom.

[Tomconroy]

17. I'm pretty sure he'll indict on the stolen papers case early in

The new year. But trump won't go to prison on that one.
It's the Jan 6 case that's the important one.