Bárðarbunga asks:
(Read the whole question—it’s a good one)
The first answer is yes, real crimes were committed. Many of them carry long prison sentences.
I started compiling a list of possible crimes committed by Trump and his circle . . .
Which brings us to the question: Will the perpetrators be brought to justice?
Answer: Maybe. You see, there are a few complications.
Complication #1: The people who are committing the crimes now hold the highest offices in the land.
Complication #2: The lawbreakers are being shielded by the GOP, who have held majority power in the government.
That’s why they included a remedy in the Constitution: Congress acts as a check on presidential power.
Instead the GOP majority sabotaged the investigation and pushed their agenda through as quickly as they could.
Complication #3: The nature of the crimes.
In 2011, Mueller talked about “today’s mobsters."
archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/…
He characterized these criminal orgs as iron triangles consisting of (1) organized criminals (2) corrupt government officials, and greedy business leaders.
archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/…
Bringing to justice a fluid, international global mob organization whose leaders control wealthy and powerful countries is a lot harder than, say, getting Al Capone
—particularly when prosecutors are investigating their boss.
If, say, 80% of Americans were enraged by the fact that Russia selected (and installed) our president, removing him and bringing his pals to justice would be easy.
One person commented that if all the criminals don’t pay a price, the billionaires will think they can “go ahead and fund the next attack on America.”
They think they are saving America.
They think America has grown corrupt and they want to make America Great Again (Corrupt = minorities displacing “real” Americans. See Tweet 4 👇 )
It’s not quite as simple as ‘a criminal commits a crime.’’
For example, liberals don’t look at Rosa Parks as a ‘criminal’ even though she violated the law when she refused to give up her seat on a bus . . .
Libertarians (and Trump) believe that the laws Trump and pals violated shouldn’t be there.
They say they want to "maximize liberty" by limiting government.
They disagree on moral grounds with most of the laws on my list.
Libertarian Rand Paul doesn't even see a problem with partnering with Russia.
If he continues to retains 40+ in the face of overwhelming evidence of lawbreaking, the situation is more akin to the Civil War than, say, bringing Capone to justice.
The conflict in the Civil War was opposing visions of America. The South wanted no federal government intruding into states’ rights. . .
The North won, so we got the America the North wanted.
At the end of the Civil War, the question was how far to punish the South.
If Trump “wins” America becomes like Russia—and he and his pals become all-powerful oligarchs.
(This is still possible although after the midterms, much, much less likely).
Should there be punishment? Yes, certainly. For one thing, people should never keep illegally obtained money.
I'm not persuaded, though, that harsh punishment will prevent another fascist uprising.
My personal bias: I am not a fan of harsh punishment, and I don't think mass incarceration has ever helped a society.