成人X站

This morning I鈥檓 just going to refer you to an written by Jack Goldsmith. I鈥檇 never heard of him, but according to his bio, he served for nine months as an assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, finally resigning because of the Bush administration鈥檚 attempts to justify the waterboarding of terror suspects.

He then became a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Harvard Law. Yes, he is a conservative law professor at Harvard!

More from Dave Ross: Amazon needs to fight back against their phony AI books

Another interesting note in his bio is that his stepfather was suspected of playing a role in the , which I mention not to fault him since we don鈥檛 get to choose our parents, but just so no one accuses me of covering it up.

So now let鈥檚 get to what he said in the New York Times.

He says it is flirting with disaster to put Donald Trump on trial.

He says as satisfying as it may be to Trump鈥檚 opponents to see Jack Smith鈥檚 indictments, to have it all come to a climax during the campaign season, which is what鈥檚 going to happen, would be a national disaster.

A disaster for American politics and a disaster for the reputation of the Justice Department, which could ultimately degrade the rule of law.

Professor Goldsmith does not appear to be a Trump apologist.

He says the Senate should have removed Trump after his impeachment in February 2021. He holds Trump entirely responsible for what he calls this 鈥渕ammoth mess.鈥�

But the Senate did not convict, and that cannot be changed. And so, Professor Goldsmith seems to be saying that the Justice Department should suspend further prosecution to avoid the appearance of a former president being prosecuted by a current president.

Does he have a valid point?

I admit that I value domestic peace and tranquility more than the (dubious) deterrent effect of the immediate trial and imprisonment of this one man.

And there is another way for justice to be served: We still have free elections. Even if prosecution is suspended, the indictments are public; voters can read them and deliver a verdict at the polls.

An outrageous idea, I know, to give special treatment to a politician for the sole reason that he鈥檚 running for office.

And yes, it could well mean that future ballots will be packed with scoundrels who declare their candidacy for the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution. But as a lot of you might say, how鈥檚 that any different from what we have now?

And if a majority of voters, for whatever reason, decide to elect them anyway? That鈥檚 how democracy is supposed to work.

For better or worse, a Democracy gets what it votes for.

Listen to Seattle鈥檚 Morning News with Dave Ross and Colleen O鈥橞rien weekday mornings from 5 鈥� 9 a.m. on 成人X站 Newsradio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the聽podcast here