[What is going to stop ex-President Trump from returning to the
White House is voters refusing to vote for him. Indictments and
prosecutions can play a role in that inasmuch as they are the society
communicating to itself what is okay and what is not. They can play a
role in shaping public opinion but they are no replacement for an
election. ]
[[link removed]]

DEMS AND THE FOLLY OF MICROMANAGING THE TRUMP SPECTACLE  
[[link removed]]


 

Josh Marshall
March 20, 2023
Talking Points Memo
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ What is going to stop ex-President Trump from returning to the
White House is voters refusing to vote for him. Indictments and
prosecutions can play a role in that inasmuch as they are the society
communicating to itself what is okay and what is not. They can play a
role in shaping public opinion but they are no replacement for an
election. _

Former President Donald Trump speaks with reporters and staff on his
airplane, known as Trump Force One, as he is flown to Iowa on Monday,
March 13, 2023, (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

 

I’ve only gotten a couple negative replies to the post
[[link removed]] below
about Alvin Bragg’s expected indictments of ex-President Trump. But
those replies have had a wild intensity that started me thinking about
what the possible disconnect was between me and these readers. What I
said was that it’s not great. But it’s happening entirely outside
any framework that any of us can do anything about. And, mostly, I
don’t think it will matter much one way or another if, as I expect,
it is followed by indictments for graver crimes. In fact, even if this
is the only Trump indictment ever, I still don’t think it matters
much.

People just see things differently of course. And intense disagreement
is nothing new to me. But I think there’s something more going on
here — or two things rather. And, because I think these few TPM
Readers represent a lot more people who think the same way, here’s
what I think those things are.

Some people think indictments of Donald Trump are a make-or-break
thing for the future of the country. Among other things, they could be
what blocks his path back to the White House in 2024. So getting it
all arranged just right couldn’t be more important. But that’s
misguided. Holding Trump accountable, especially for his actions
surrounding January 6 and the events in Georgia, is very important.
Judicial accountability is how a country speaks to itself about what
is acceptable and what is not. But that means _bringing indictments_.
We can’t control whether juries will find him guilty. And we
certainly can’t control how the country at large will react to the
prosecution of a former President.

The thing that is going to stop ex-President Trump from returning to
the White House is voters refusing to vote for him. Indictments and
prosecutions can play a role in that inasmuch as they are the society
communicating to itself what is okay and what is not. The January 6
hearings played some of this role in the 2022 elections. But they
operate that way only if there is an underlying belief in the
population which charges underline and confirm. They can play a role
in shaping public opinion but they are no replacement for an election.
They are not a judicial _deus ex machina_ which removes Trump from
the scene. Expecting them to be is a big mistake. Judicial
accountability for the past and an election about the future are two
things that may influence each other. But they’re fundamentally two
separate things running in parallel.

The other thing is something more fundamental about what you control
and what you don’t. I see a lot of people who get very wound up
about their people needing to get everything inflected and pitched
just right not only so that no one gets the wrong impression but so
that no bad people will claim you meant something you didn’t. If
it’s a political campaign, which this isn’t, everybody needs to
produce messages that are as clear and effective as possible. But
there is a certain point where you have to recognize that you cannot
control what everyone thinks or says or how they react.

Some of this tendency came out during Trump’s two impeachment
trials. It was an inherently frustrating process since the _de
facto_ judge in the first trial, the GOP Senate majority, was
absolutely committed to acquitting Trump no matter what. But the basic
dynamic was the same in both trials. This prompted a wave of anger and
second-guessing about the case brought by the House impeachment
managers. (I confess to doing some myself.) If only they’d taken
things to the next level, made a more piercing or overwhelming case,
the outcome might have been different. Few people made this argument
fully explicit. Because once seen in the cold light of day it was
clear there was no argument, no new facts, no anything that would
convince Republicans to convict Trump at trial. But even if few could
defend the argument, lots of people felt it, and strongly.

At a certain point we all need to recognize which things we control
and which we do not and frame our expectations and actions
accordingly. That’s not settling or lowering expectations. It’s
just a proper way to live in the world. The issue in the impeachment
trials wasn’t how good the Democrats’ arguments were. It was
Republicans’ absolute commitment to defending Trump no matter what.
Once you realize this, it’s clarifying and even liberating. You
understand what you’re actually trying to do. The contrary impulse
led a lot of Democrats and a seemingly endless number of pundits to
enthrall themselves in tales of Democrats’ fecklessness and
impotence. Failure after failure! They can’t get the job done!

Recognizing what you control and what you don’t isn’t a matter of
letting yourself off easy. It’s a way to remain sane and not
demoralized or enervated by the hopeless folly of trying to control
everything.

The importance of prosecuting Donald Trump isn’t any vain hope that
it cuts short or removes the requirement of defeating him and anyone
who would take his place at the ballot box. It’s rather that in our
society, when people commit crimes they get prosecuted for it. While
there may be a place for some forbearance for former Presidents, if a
President can commit crimes of such a brazen and grave character with
no response we are truly saying that Presidents have impunity and are
above the law. And that is something we should not allow. It simply
cannot be the case that Trump is such an habitual criminal that the
political opposition is at fault or on the line for the fact that he
might be prosecuted first for one of his lesser crimes. It’s too
much to ask.

_Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) [[link removed]]  is the
founder and Editor-in-Chief of TPM_

_TALKING POINTS MEMO (TPM) is an independent news organization that
publishes reporting and analysis about American politics, public
policy and political culture.  TPM is funded overwhelmingly by
readers’ membership fees. More than 70% of our income is derived
from memberships. The rest comes from advertising. As a fully
independent organization, TPM has no corporate overlords. TPM is not
beholden to or controlled by any outside interests. TPM was founded by
a journalist and to this day its “business” side is staffed with
former journalists whose primary mission is to create a sustainable
environment for our reporters and editors to do great work._

* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* impeachment
[[link removed]]
* presidential elections
[[link removed]]
* January 6
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]