Even if the DOJ has what would be sufficient evidence, I would lean away from an attempted prosecution. In the real world, not a fantasy world, the jury pool will be made up of a cross section of citizens. Normally a lot of people work to avoid jury duty (I am honestly surprised at the number of people I know that are very politically engaged, always vote, and will do absolutely anything to avoid sitting on a jury). Conversely, it would be relatively simple for hard core MAGA lovers to avoid getting filtered from the jury pool and ending up on the jury. In other words, the chance of a neutral jury that would dispassionately here the evidence is near zero in our current political environment. Nothing less than a full conviction will cast by the right as complete vindication and that only takes one biased juror. Finally even if a conviction could be secured, the next Republican president is very likely to be someone like DeSantis or Noem, etc. That president would most certainly pardon Trump, claiming the prosecution was politically motivated. Under any circumstance the trial would an enormous drain on the public attention away from anything else, and the next elections could well turn on a trial, not on actual policy (to extent elections ever turn on policy). I just don't see any practical upside to an attempted prosecution, and I suspect Garland is plenty smart to see the same pitfalls.
If memory serves that happened just recently, with one juror claiming “liberals” were to blame (details are fuzzy to me now),
So, yeah, it happens.
And then, of course, if we get a DeSantis in office....
These are not arguments for not prosecuting. These are arguments for not looking for the silver bullet and the TeeVee drama ending where the good guys win and everybody's happy. And especially for not prosecuting just because tout le Twitter demands it.
No comments:
Post a Comment