Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've only heard some pretty radical socialists argue that the criminal process should be done away with for its 'vindictiveness'.

Criminal Process in the United States has always included the use of a Presidential Pardon when that was deemed appropriate. Nor is the type of media-frenzied witch-hunt that a Nixon trial would have generated all that close to what we revere as due criminal process. Your choice to misconstrue my answer as calling for us to do away with criminal process is incorrect and your tone a little insulting.

I would say that the pardoning of Nixon, and the refusal to hold serious crimes to account in general, is what breeds apathy and disaffection. It's dangerous to blithely promote the legal invincibility of the POTUS, as though the most powerful person in the world needs special allowances and comforts.

I heard that argument at the time. There were assertions that only by spelling things out in a lengthy trial, meticulously cataloguing every abuse of power by Nixon and every effort to cover up, obfuscate, or obstruct justice had to be trumpeted to cleanse our system. I understand that concept, but I do not think it would have the "cleansing" effect you suppose. The Impeachment process is there to counter "legal invincibility" in the President. While it has, at times, been mis-used, it did force the resignation of a President who had clearly abused his power in office.

I don't give a crap about "punishment". The public needs to know the facts of the matter, and see the actors responsible held liable. This history must not be brushed under the rug for future generations to rediscover, or to fester in the form of a revanchist mythology.

Watergate and the fall of the Nixon Presidency is one of the most thoroughly covered events in modern history. We know practically day by day who did and said what and to whom. There is more hard information available to the public on this than is available on the Kennedy assassination.

And all it takes to form a revanchist mythology is the desire to do so. Those who believe in the "Stab in the back," or the coverup of aliens at Rosswell, or the moral triumph of the "blood-stained banner" don't let anything like real facts obscure their mythological belief anyway. 2/3 of the students in my classes can name everyone to have been a season judge on The Voice while barely half could name the sitting VPOTUS and fewer than 1 in 5 could name both of Florida's senators. Mostly "the public" just doesn't give a rats ass once the person has been fired unless there are some good T&A pictures to go with it.

It is important that Trump partisans feel shame(d), because it is a necessary step in the process of de-Trumpifying them, which is a necessary step in bringing them away from a worldview tham demands the exclusion, marginalization, or destruction of their perceived opponents. Otherwise our politics will surely continue to get worse, and blatant, committed demagogues who outright promise the end of our system of government as we know it will be the next development. These won't be socialists.

Those inclined toward shame for having supported him now that they see him in action already feel ashamed. Those who don't already will not likely feel that shame as a result of the kind of resignation and trial you envisage. They might drop him in the event of the old 'dead girl or a live boy' standard, but I doubt anything less tawdry would make a dent.

Though when Trump leaves office, they will slowly de-trumpify themselves in the natural course of things.

The severity of offenses matters too. Do you really see NO circumstances in which the sitting OR former POTUS should be subjected to the criminal process for acts during tenure of office?

Proof of treason, gross malfeasance, crimes of violence would all, I believe, be prosecuted as appropriate once the President was impeached of upon leaving office. The problem with too free a use of the legal system against an executive is it can criminalize acts of governance when the biggest problem with those acts of governance is disagreement therewith. One of the reasons Caesar crossed the Rubicon was the virtual certainty that he would have been tried for treason, stripped of his property, and exiled by the Roman Senate.

In the case of Nixon, I believe that removal from office and the subsequent and continuing tarnish of his reputation was enough of an exemplar.

In all, to the extent that Trump has committed serious offenses, a recommendation to refrain from hashing it out publicly promises to be devastating to our nation. Of course pulling out the barbed arrow is painful. But you can't let it sit and live well that way.

See earlier discussion above on refusing to hold accountable

Trump's approach to government, and his affinity to his base, is essentially fascist. Trumpism is fascistic. Don't make the mistake of running Zeno's treadmill when assessing the presence of fascism in contemporary times.

Fascism may be what Trump would like, and I have noted elsewhere that all of the fascist elements in the USA are his adherents whether or not he claims them. I made that point above BEFORE noting, after skipping lines, that the term fascism was altered from its original form and that we now use it as a synonym for jack-booted authoritarian thuggery. So the mere mention of the outdated meaning of the term is me trying to water down the argument against Trump by playing argumentation games? You are overstating things.

You apparently believe Trump to be a clear and present danger to the republic and that tyranny is at hand. Why don't you go and use your first amendment and second amendment rights, convince enough of your friends to join you, and go end the threat.


I'll settle for seeing him leave office on 1/20/2020 EDIT: 1/20/2021. Might even contribute a few bucks to someone who'll best him in both the popular vote AND the electoral college.