Will the Prosecution of Trump Have Terrible Consequences? | Washington Monthly
washingtonmonthly.com
Maybe, but they’re likely to be far less terrible than if he wasn’t prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

FTA:

Some argue that prosecuting Trump is not worth it because it, too, would put the country through unnecessary agony. They say this is akin to the rationale for Gerald Ford’s 1974 blanket pardon for Richard Nixon—a move widely criticized at the time, which may have cost the Michigander the presidency in 1976. But in the nearly 50 years since then, the public mood has shifted, and we see the merit in what Ford did and the courage it took, considering that the easier path would have been to let Nixon pay for his many crimes. The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award was given to Ford by the John F. Kennedy Library 17 years after the fact—a measure of how much the conventional wisdom about the right thing to do can turn.

Some argue for similar leniency for Trump, including the Harvard professor and former Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith, who took up this cause in The New York Times. The gist of his case is that, although Trump is surely guilty, pursuing his January 6 crimes comes at a cost. I deeply admire Goldsmith and respect this point of view, but I think we’d be wrong to abide by it or the notions of others urging the prosecutors to drop their cases.

Let’s not idealize the Ford pardon. It, too, came at a cost. It sent a powerful signal then and now that there are two standards of justice in America. It wrought cynicism and may have enabled or at least encouraged other presidents to break the law. Would Trump have been Trump if Nixon had served time? It’s a counterfactual that can’t be answered. Plus, Trump’s alleged crimes make Watergate look like spitting on the sidewalk.

  • spaceghotiOPEnglish
    5•11 months ago

    The piece mentions a couple, one of which Lindsey Graham touched on as well.

    Yet, some conservative lawyers see a parade of horribles that will, as Goldsmith puts it, “probably inspire ever more aggressive tit-for-tat investigations in office by future Congresses and administrations of the opposing party to the detriment of sound government.”

    This assumes, of course, that Republicans haven’t already weaponized the courts against anyone they don’t like.

    But it also mentions links Goldsmith’s article in the Times:

    This deeply unfortunate timing looks political and has potent political implications even if it is not driven by partisan motivations. And it is the Biden administration’s responsibility, as its Justice Department reportedly delayed the investigation of Mr. Trump for a year and then rushed to indict him well into the G.O.P. primary season. The unseemliness of the prosecution will most likely grow if the Biden campaign or its proxies use it as a weapon against Mr. Trump if he is nominated.

    It may also exacerbate the criminalization of politics. The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor. Exaggeration and truth shading in the facilitation of self-serving legal arguments or attacks on political opponents have always been commonplace in Washington. These practices will probably be disputed in the language of, and amid demands for, special counsels, indictments and grand juries.

    In other words, it’ll have the effect of normalizing the things that Republicans have been normalizing for decades. Heads they win, tails we lose.