"The reckless rage of the lawless" (But, I'm SOOOO Concerned!)

Whether this will ultimately be a criminal prosecution or not is far from clear, though nothing suggests the Justice Department has ruled the possibility out. Regardless, those of us outside of government will likely not get the immediate gratification of a quick resolution. The investigation from here is likely to vanish for a while.

Yes. There has not been much "immediate gratification" except a continue series of "look at that!" sort of things that after a while gets tiresome. Fine. Yeah. That's something. But, what is the bottom line? Are we really somewhere ahead of where we were before? Or, is this a not that exciting extended process for which success will only be seen in hindsight down the way? 

The search of Mar-a-Lago for national security documents is a story that continues, now with a partially unredacted affidavit to help us obtain a bit of clarification. Another story getting somewhat less attention is that whole Secret Service mess, including deletion of key data.  What will be the ultimate justice here?  Trump was impeached twice and here we are.

One continuing difficulty is that idea that doing anything major here is so very fraught.  This is the case even when people agree Merrick Garland and so on (after all we have  TRUMP SELECTED FBI director) can be trusted and that Trump did bad things. Note this op-ed by the usual old guard:

William S. Cohen is a former secretary of defense and former Republican senator from Maine. William H. Webster is a former director of the FBI and the CIA and a retired judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

They say basically the right things, but the assumed stakes underline why going against Trump (or expanding the Court or)  is supposed to be so dangerous.  

Garland’s actions upholding the principle that no one is above the law reaches well beyond our borders. Surely, he is not eager to be the first person to initiate criminal proceedings against a former president. To do so will establish a woeful, even if justified precedent, and possibly will set off a level of civil strife we have not witnessed in more than 150 years.

Two things here. As someone flagged online when I cited this, why is this a "woeful" precedent?  Yes, on some level, it is  not happy. But, on another, if is a good precedent, a precedent where wrongdoing is answered and justice is applied.  Not doing anything after this "unprecedented" wrongdoing occurs would be much more "woeful."  

The second thing is "more than 150 years" would be before 1872. So, the "level of civil strife" that will arise when a (limited) prosecution of Trump finally comes (is "initiated") will be worse than Reconstruction.  Or, I might add, the urban riots and assassinations of the 1960s.  We can cite other moments as well such as the two Red Scares or the civil strife that arose during the Great Depression.  And, so on.

These are very serious and violent moments in our history.  The KKK or some form of racist violence poisoned the South with murders and mayhem. Is it REALLY likely that any reactions to criminal prosecution (which quite honestly will not likely lead to him in an orange jumpsuit) will lead to reactions comparable to that?  The overheated fears here are a tad ridiculous.  And, if anything, a form of incitement.  

I will not argue here that nothing will happen. We recently had a prosecution for the attempted kidnapping (or worse) of a sitting Democratic governor.  Violence against government officials has been attempted and in a few cases accomplished.  The Capitol was invaded. And so on.  But, a sense of historical perspective should also be recognized here.

The op-ed does not say we should not act.  It ends with the statement that Garland "cannot tailor his judgment to accommodate the rage of the lawless." Still, the op-ed -- from even the sentiments of these two -- troubled me.  Others more partisan take things further.  Democrats are the unhinged ones, trying incite partisan hatreds against Trump for their own ends.  Any violence is basically their fault.  And so on.

I'm tired of these people who seem to be almost crying in fear about what will happen if we do what bottom line we should do to answer the crimes and violations of norms of Trump and his minions.  And, yes, I do also point to those who cry about the idea of court expansion, as if doing nothing is of no harm.  Such a reminder is particularly easy when the person in charge of prosecution is Merrick Garland.