@schamspeare

No, laws give officials permission to indict, but it's still up to their prosecutorial discretion which cases to pursue and which indictments to charge.

At all levels of US government executive branch officials decide every day that some instance of law breaking isn't worth pursuing, for a variety of reasons.

One simple illustration of this is that we don't say cops have to go after every single driver breaking the speed limit. They use their judgment to decide which ones really need to be pulled over.

@volkris This isn’t a petty infraction, though. I think that’s what Trump would have people believe — that it’s nothing. Meanwhile anyone else would unquestionably suffer a substantial penalty for endangering state secrets. If it’s a law, if it would be law for anyone else, it has to be law for him too. The legal system is slow and flatfooted but I think it has to carry on as though it were blind to whatever political intrigue is going on.

@schamspeare

But that doesn't change that it's still up to a prosecutor to choose whether to charge.

Even if it's a major crime breaking an important law, it's still up to the discretion of the executive to decide whether to move forward with the case, given the totality of the situation, everything from his own resources through evidence through his own personal opinion of the law.

And their likelihood of showing good judgment in that is part of what is to be considered when picking the person who is to have that power of choice.

@volkris I grant you that the timing does not seem ideal. But I don’t think you can just let it go. Or wait for him to become president again, when it will surely disappear. I don’t know. Depressing no matter how you slice it.

@schamspeare

One reason I'm emphasizing that indictments are at the discretion of prosecutors is simply because we need to keep that judgment issue in mind when voting. Basic civics.

BUT, there are some other complications. What choice would we make if the prosecution made it more likely for Trump to win reelection? Is it really worth it to have him in court if it also meant having him as president?

Each person might answer that question differently. It's a complex topic.

It might be better for society as a whole to let one old, guilty man go without facing a judge rather than giving him this promotion, this megaphone for him to continue spewing bullshit into society.

That's the kind of question we ask prosecutors to weigh.

@volkris Yeah, good point for sure. You think it swings things that much? I don’t think anyone new is going to him or anyone leaving. Maybe it galvanizes voters, strengthens turnout. Although it’ll likely come down to election hijinks anyway.

@schamspeare

I do! The whole tone of mainstream conservative media changed once the indictments started.

Earlier in the year major conservative figures were really turning on the guy, bashing him day after day, discouraging him from running again. And even his announcement was met with criticism over campaign strategy rather than celebration.

All of that changed with the Bragg indictment as now people are backing him despite who he is just to stand up to what they see as confirmation that The Man really is out to get them.

These indictments are the best campaign fodder Trump could have hoped for, and the response of professional commentators shows it.

@volkris I don’t know what the answer is. Apparently it’s expecting too much to ask people to do what is right for their country and the free world.