Not prosecuting Trump - even with overwhelming evidence?

But now we ARE 'the kind of country where this happens".

I would venture a guess Neville Chamberlain didn't want to accept the reality of the true nature and scope of the Nazi's ambitions; by having avoided a direct confrontation and not doing what needed to be done - regardless of the ramifications.

What would our nation look like if Lincoln had adopted a similar posture after the attack upon Fort Sumpter?

As an unaffiliated independent voter who voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, I have subsequently voted straight Dem tickets in order to dislodge Trumpists from holding office and to hold those accountable for what is still a continued series of grave assaults upon our Republic.

If I learn there has been an intentional decision to not prosecute Trump - in spite of overwhelming evidence of his guilt - I will have very little choice other than to consider an unwillingness to pursue justice as being right up there with the "original sins" of the Trump administration. I will not be alone. Moreover, I suspect such a development would only serve to radicalize many on the left and thrust a more complex downward spiral of distrust and violence.

<<BEGIN QUOTE>>

No former president has ever been indicted. And a presidential administration of one party charging a president of another party — no matter how much prosecutors insist the decision was made on the facts and the law — would create an uncomfortable precedent.

“I don’t think we want to be the kind of country where this happens often,” McQuade said.

Vance said she believes Garland would have to decide whether “prosecuting Trump destabilizes the country more than it puts it upright.”

<<END QUOTE>>

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-w...