Okay... all fair enough. Let's say Trump appoints an AG who happens to immediately appoint special counsel to investigate the Biden family.
You had not included the "if Trump was elected" part. That changes things. If that happened Trump, can have his AG appoint special counsel. Presidents don't do it, AGs do under the current regulations in place since 1999. The FBI and DOJ could absolutely commence investigations. It's all fair game. Keep in mind the statute of limitations is running. For instance, it runs in October of this year on Hunter's potential firearm purchase case.
Let's not just ignore the fact that both special counsels were appointed as a direct result of Trump's own actions: Firing James Comey for investigating potential Russian interference and then trying to lie about why he was fired Taking classified documents and defying a DOJ subpoena If Joe fired Wray simply because he's investigating Hunter that would warrant a special counsel. If Joe pulled the same shenanigans with classified docs and refused to return them that would warrant a special counsel. Appointing a special counsel simply because the other side did it is straight up political retribution with corrupt intent.
And the would be a virtual certainty if Trump is somehow elected and it would be a far more accurate example of "weaponization" of the DOJ than anything that Biden and Garland have done. I also would guess that if that should that happen the special counsel would be a hardcore Trumper rather a career prosecutor like Jack Smith.
Correct me if I am wrong, but he was never "legally" pardoned. @gator_lawyer ? Ford announced a blanket pardon which promised to legally pardon Nixon for any crimes committed while in office, should he be convicted. (This effectively ended all prosecution against Nixon, achieving its goals. )
Congressional hearings by politicians is not the same as Justice Department criminal indictments. One is inherently political, the other is specifically not supposed to be.
Nope. One side would spin it as "the right thing to do, healing, etc.". The other side would spin it as "reprehensible, immoral, etc.". And the Outrage Money Machine would keep on churning.
If the current or next Attorney General determined there's a need to appoint a special prosecutor to look into potential crimes committed by the Bidens, I would obviously want to know more, such as what crimes and what evidence there might be indicating that such crimes occurred. I think the professional history of the AG and the special prosecutor involved would matter to me, too. I'd like to think I wouldn't automatically dismiss credible allegations out of hand - much less call it the worst thing that's ever happened or whatever Trump is claiming. Having said that, of course I won't deny that I would be highly suspicious of any investigations opened under a Trump second term. Putting aside that he's a compulsive liar, how credible would it be for Trump to later deny personal involvement in appointing a special counsel to go after Biden when Trump is loudly pledging to do that very thing? And why is he pledging to do it now when he was in office for four years and apparently did nothing about it then? I'm not even sure if the statute of limitations have passed. Notably, the Clintons were investigated by independent counsel. Regardless of whatever one thinks about that process and Ken Starr, he did uncover the affair and potential crimes associated with the coverup. Clinton got impeached, entered a plea deal, and had to admit fault and pay fines. The country survived, and somehow Bush and Obama both managed to avoid getting impeached or indicted despite the polarized political climate during their administrations.
Because he had reason to be concerned about the political implications and big picture implications of pursuing a criminal action by his own Justice Department against his chief political rival. Biden just took the genie out of the bottle. Impeachment is political and if this ends with Trump entering a plea deal with no jail time and retains the ability to run for office, I think we'll come out of this okay as well. Which is all the more reason I want the details of plea negotiations released to the public (if legal).
Why do you think that is? Was he lying? Had a sudden change of heart completely out of character (which seems ridiculous given his continued antagonism WRT her emails)? Lack of evidence to do so?
I was just acknowledging that I'd be more than suspicious if Trump gets elected, appoints an AG who in turn appoints a special counsel to investigate Biden, and then for Trump to claim that his AG made the decision independently and that he (Trump) did not direct or request it. As a comparison, imagine if Biden had pledged during his campaign to use the presidency to appoint a special counsel to criminally investigate Trump and his family? With that sort of background, I imagine that's all we'd be hearing about right now, and the accusations of the charges against Trump being politically-driven would carry a lot more weight.
He moved onto the next thing which would not be out of character. If the people around him were just planting the Hillary seeds 24/7, he might've done it. Who knows? But they were probably doing precisely the opposite because they understood the big picture.
No, Trump didn't indict Hillary with charges threatening her to spend the rest of her life in prison.
