General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm going to say it, and you can place yourself where you want on this [View all]bigtree
(86,016 posts)...and since you didn't provide a shred of proof, I'm going to assume you're just talking down the prosecution using your projection of the investigations and prosecutions, instead of the real thing- something not restricted to those actually seeking justice in this case.
Moreover, the complaint that Garland didn't save the election is not only contradictory to the impetus to hold Trump accountable for his own manipulation of justice and government to achieve a political goal, that interfering course would sink the prosecutions, not further them.
The idea that Garland's DOJ should have been on some political timetable to advantage Biden in the election and put Trump at a disadvantage with his legal moves against him is just an amazing ask for what is essentially illegal and an affront to democracy and the law.
But on a practical level, how do you reconcile all of that political interference you're counseling for DOJ with the fact that neither charges or a conviction can be used to keep Trump from assuming office?
The charges, some of which carry a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison, would not prevent Trump from continuing his third campaign for the White House nor would a conviction keep him from holding office, experts have said, noting the Constitution only requires presidential candidates to be natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have lived in the country for 14 years.
If Trump is convicted and sentenced to prison, he could potentially serve as president from behind barsa scenario that would introduce unprecedented security and logistical challenges, Reuters noted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/09/trump-indictment-why-a-conviction-or-imprisonment-wouldnt-prevent-him-from-being-president/?sh=29c9fdf01c31