Thread by @RosenzweigP

In this article (theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…) I made the case for conducting a criminal investigation of Trump after he leaves office. In doing so, I acknowledged the very strong norm against such activity. I also noted that the single MOST significant reason to decline /1

an investigation was the idea of civil peace and the peaceful transfer of authority. In some ways, the promise not to prosecute a successor is, realistically, the price we pay for the peaceful transition of power. It is a way of calming the body politic and uniting /2

the country. Some may snort in derision at the idea -- but it is a very real and sensible one. Ford's pardon of Nixon and the decision not to indict Clinton both allowed the country to move past those events and try to heal the wounds. The same, normally, would be /3

true of a decision to not pursue a criminal case against Trump. It would be a gracious effort to heal the wounds and unite the nation.

But here's the thing -- the nation has to WANT to heal. What we are seeing now from Trump and his supporters -- the purges of opponents /4

and the refusal to accept the election -- are indicative of his desire to continue the conflict ad infinitum.

To be sure, he can do that -- and it may motivate his base. But if that is the plan, what is the justification for declining the investigation and, if apt /5

prosecution? There is no doubt that, on the merits, the investigation is warranted. The =only= ground for declining is to calm the waters of civil dissent.

But if the waters will not be calmed; if the Trumpistas will not acknowledge the result, why would you /6

refuse to act without commensurate gain? Why try to buy peace if the other side isn't selling?

Or, put another way, why graciously refuse to investigate Trump if he ungraciously refuses to acknowledge that he lost and insists on continuing the fight? /fin