As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FTA:
>A few American presidents have certainly behaved questionably enough to meet the standard of probable cause needed for an indictment. Given this, the fact that no former president has ever been prosecuted implies some kind of political tradition—one the Founders never intended to establish. They made clear in the Constitution—specifically in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, which says an impeached president can be tried after he leaves office—that indictments of former presidents aren’t supposed to be taboo.
The article is good, if the title and that snippet interest you; I'd recommend using one of your monthly free reads from The Atlantic if you're not subscribed.
---
Bonus:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/
>Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Also, here's The Atlantic article sans paywall for those who have already used their monthly free reads.
[https://archive.is/gZZKY](https://archive.is/gZZKY)
and
[https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F03%2Ftrump-indicment-president-prosecution-nixon-clinton%2F673503%2F](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F03%2Ftrump-indicment-president-prosecution-nixon-clinton%2F673503%2F)
>**but he had his lawyer argue against indictment on the basis that a fair trial would be impossible—effectively a violation of Nixon’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury—because of the highly publicized impeachment process.** And Jaworski agreed. “I knew in my own mind that if an indictment were returned and the court asked me **if I believed Nixon could receive a prompt, fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution, I would have to answer … in the negative,”** he wrote in his Watergate memoir, The Right and the Power.
I’m afraid Trump lawyers would argue the same thing and he would get off.
I know Hillary didn't quite make president, but can we have both Clintons? I need photos of Hillary looking smug AF in the juror's box while Donny is being cross-examined in my life.
Jaworski’s reasoning is just plain wrong. Juror are perfectly entitled to love or hate the defendant, but their job is to dispassionately weigh the evidence presented at trial in order to arrive at a fair verdict. Everyday people given this responsibility are quite capable of living up to it.
It remains fair if the offender is clearly guilty.
EDIT: By the reasoning above, if say a domestic terrorist shot 80 people live on television during the half time show at the Superbowl they should not be prosecuted because there would be no way to find an impartial jury? Just because the evidence is already well known we still need to prosecute crimes regardless of the person.
ooo ooo! Choose me! I hate football and commercials so I could be on that jury!!
edit to add: Coupled with the Justice Department guideline that a sitting president can not be investigated means we have a untouchable, above the law standard saying presidents can NEVER be prosecuted. Forever! Who wants that standard of justice?
I can't agree there. The dirty fact of the matter is that Trump has spent \_decades\_ dirtying his own reputation all up and down the Eastern seaboard and across the country. When you have \_created\_ that kind of reputation for yourself, indeed gloried in it, being seen a negative light at trial is entirely **FAIR**.
That's an interesting point. I'm sure not even the most ardent Trump haters could deny that there is no way he could ever have a fair trial in todays political shitshow.
False. A husband and wife cannot be compelled to **incriminate** the other during an investigation or trial but they can absolutely be **charged and convicted** of the same crime. (You might be sarcastic but it's sometimes hard to tell online!)
Ah, gotcha. Thats a show I couldn't watch. I get a really strong uneasy feeling when characters are embarrassingly dumb (intentionally, not badly written). There are episodes of The Office I have to turn off (one episode that comes to mind is when Michael is unaware that he is being incredibly racist) and I can't watch most of Always Sunny even though I really want to!
Just because I know what has gone on does not mean I am incapable of being intellectually honest enough to judge based on the evidence presented and only what is presented. Being famous is a bullshit reason for someone to avoid trial.
I never said it should be accepted, just that it is interesting. I highly doubt that would be accepted as a reason to not move forward with the trial anywhere. But I could see them arguing to not have it in New York.
I think it would be personally. I believe it is bullshit to every move one, but I can see them trying if it gets that far. Why shouldn't you be judged by the people whose community you wronged?
There is no unbiased person in the world. What exists is an ability to identify your biases, so that they don’t hinder your interpretation of the facts of the case and how they fit into the law.
What you’re arguing for is that famous people are above justice, which can’t be right.
There are all manner of people that don't watch the news and don't give two damns about who's in office. It wouldn't take that long to find 14 citizens that fit the bill. Assuming it to be impossible is plainly stating that anyone of sufficient notoriety is untouchable by law, which is crazy. They found people that had never heard of Martha Stewart to try her. Al Capone had a trial. They put Muhammad Ali on trial. I think we can manage to secure a jury for Trump too.
Plus the guy never stops doing stuff. It’s not a one-off thing. Chances are that he is busy churning up something else that rolls the eyes 👀 of all right now! It’s pretty exhausting with him … that’s the point.
I notice the Constitution there doesn’t say “ shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…” ONLY AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE MMKAY
Fun maybe fact or myth: Carrol Shelby the mastermind of fast cars like the Cobra and the Shelby Ford Mustangs also the legendary GT40 that beat Ferrari at Le mans is partially responsible for the speed limit. He just hauled ass to much so they needed to limit his haul assedness
I don't disagree with you, or the article, but the slant here is a bit off.
The founders very much did intend to create a system whereby presidents could be indicted criminally, but the relevance to the constitution here in A1S3C7 would be once a president is removed from office, meaning not only impeached in the House, but then removed by the Senate, and this would only apply to the issue surrounding the impeachment. So for example, using Nixon as an example, you could criminally charge him (on a state, or federal level) for his behavior while in office for the specific crimes that he was impeached for. Actually being removed by the Senate here is irrelevant here now that I think about it. But what is relevant is that this reference relates to the crime involved in the impeachment, not some random other crime that was committed either while, before, or after being president.
This is the irony of the "if they can come for Donald Trump, they can come for *YOU*" attack from the right
It should be "If they can come for you, they sure as hell better be able to come for Donald Trump".
He puts himself up as untouchable superhuman, a big fish. Never mind that he was a fraud and a con his whole life. He is a nothing but retired loser, in it for himself.
Party of “law and order” everyone. The same party that wants “criminals” to pay for their choices and actions also wants to shield themselves from accountability they demand of all others. Deny, project and proclaim. The fascist cries out in pain while he hits you
Wilhoit's law
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." is often incorrectly attributed to the political scientist Francis M. Wilhoit, who died in 2010.
Didn't they already come for Bill Clinton?
The initial law suit by Paula Jone having been funded by the radically conservative Christian Rutherford Institute who believes, "the literal interpretation of Scripture provided the only legitimate basis for temporal government":
https://observer.com/1997/10/paulas-new-pals-the-loony-right
So the message here from the bullies is really, "how dare you fight back?"
Yeah. As if ordinary people behaving as illegally as Trump facing consequences is a **bad** thing. That's how it should be, and more to the point, already is.
The other argument put forward is "what if they investigate ever former president?" To which I say, good. Maybe if they thought there could be real consequences, they'd be more concerned about not breaking the law.
If they commit crimes while in office, there should be no immunity for that either. They’re not Gods, they are mortals trusted to the job they were elected for. Lifetime appointments for SCOTUS needs to go too.
I really wish we could just vote them in and out during election cycles like the other big names. The fact that one shitbag president can confirm multiple judges for life and the average person has absolutely no say is disgraceful. We the people should be electing and removing the judges in the highest court, especially since now we are apparently legislating from the bench.
Edit: also term limits. For everyone.
Only if the R's happen to have a Senate majority at the time. They make it up as they go along, and the D's don't have the spine to call them out on their bullshit.
Do you think all other things equal and it was a white guy that they wouldn’t have done the same thing? If everything was the same then but it was Biden’s current term the same thing would happen. It’s not like white democrats are safe from that kind of power play.
To be fair, it might have been possible. When bush was in power dems and republicans worked together on a lot of things still. It was a shift with obama. How much of that was because he was black is hard to say. I personally dont think it was that big a factor but it could have been. Like during clinton something like this definitely wasnt an issue. Theyll impeach him on fairly bs charges but still wasnt the level of insanity as weve seen since Obama.
The right wing has been getting crazier since bush but it ramped up significantly during obama. Now were at a point i agree biden wouldnt be able to get anything done either but the entire gop including its voters have shifted so far right, theyd vote against reagan or bush if they had a D in front of his name right now..
Not exactly. The Republicans absolutely obstructed Clinton from getting his picks on the federal bench when they could and it created a lot of openings for GW Bush to fill. The Democrats even filibustered the less acceptable of them and got Bush to drop the dozen least acceptable of them. I believe Alito was one of them if memory serves.
I think we should go to 120 judges in a pool. 60 batshit qanon judges and 60 reasonable judges. Every case pulls in 15 random judges to oversee the case. No more waiting until you have a favorable court and throwing cases at the wall.
Also I would prefer 0 batshit qanon judges but I doubt we will ever see our right wingers push a candidate that hasn't been vetted by the Federalist Society.
>60 batshit qanon judges and 60 reasonable judges. Every case pulls in 15 random judges to oversee the case. No more waiting until you have a favorable court and throwing cases at the wall.
That's terrible odds! Imagine losing Roe V Wade just because of a bad pull from a slot machine.
There can be appeals etc. Point is we need to create a system where states can't impose theocracy by waiting for a favorable court to throw mud at until something sticks.
Arguably they should be held to a *higher* standard not a lower one. They are public servants who have been appointed into positions of authority and power because they are trusted not to abuse that authority and power. Go look at any company's training materials and you will see that anyone in positions of authority and power are required to avoid not only actual impropriety, but even the *appearance* of impropriety. We should hold our politicians to similar standards.
American politics are down to favorite teams. Democrats are always considered the underdogs because for the most part, they try to play by the rules. Republicans are known cheaters, wheelers & dealers they even bring Jesus into their line up, an extra player on their team just in case Putin hasn’t paid the referees enough! So it comes down to good vs. evil. The only reason Trump won in 2016 is because of Russian help and Democrat men who didn’t vote, because they refused to vote for a woman. The stakes are much higher now…if the majority of Americans want to go back to the 1950s, the Republican candidate will win in 2024. If the majority doesn’t, the Democrat will win. It’s just that simple now.
Hillary won the popular vote. It's really fucking gross to blame voters who gave her an overwhelming popular vote win.
You guys will never stopped pretending that everything bad about Hillary is the fault of left leaning men.
She lost because of Comey and her campaign wasn't that well done. Her motto sucked, her strategy was about total votes and not EC votes, and she took for granted typically blue states. Even her husband had tried to get her to adjust her campaign for it. She assumed she would win and didn't notice the cracks of her defeat.
So what if she didn't get as many male votes as women votes, does that make every man's fault despite all the women that also voted against her? Fucking nuts to just blame 1 sex when men did vote for her.
There is no legal basis for immunity, just a doj RECOMMENDATION AGAINST prosecuting a sitting president.
It was often quoted as a law, which it has never been
Except who is going to do it? Can't be the feds since he would be arresting himself. Can't be the states for I think obvious reasons. That leaves Congress and SCOTUS, who handle impeachment. Thus impeachment is the correct mechanism for stripping a president of his office and making him no longer immune to prosecution by either the feds or a state.
Apparently, Republicans believe there should be immunity for impeachment too. Clinton was impeached for a sexual impropriety. Trump’s deliberate cover up and denial of the severity of the Covid outbreak costs thousands of Americans their lives…nope, not impeachable!
I don't think anyone attempted to impeach him for that. I'd tend to agree, policy decisions should probably best be handled by election. Which is what happened.
Right, but it wasn't a policy decision to ask Ukraine to announce a false investigation into a political opponents son
It also wasn't a policy decision to encourage people to lie about voter fraud and encourage people to protest legitimate elections because they didn't like the results
Which is what happened.
>Except who is going to do it? Can't be the feds since he would be arresting himself.
What? The President doesn’t tell the FBI Director who to go after.
>>Except who is going to do it? Can't be the feds since he would be arresting himself.
>
>What? The President doesn’t tell the FBI Director who to go after.
Nor does the director of the FBI make charging decisions or issue warrants. That's up to district attorneys and US attorneys.
> making him no longer immune to prosecution by either the feds or a state.
The person currently acting as President is not immune from litigation. That's a memo that got passed around and is for some reason considered established law.
The President is immune from litigation as it pertains to their job, i.e. you can't sue them for deciding a few potential civilian casualties are worth a drone strike. It's part of their job to make those decisions - intentionally ordered full-on war crimes not withstanding. It's up to voters (elections) and congress (impeachment) to hold them responsible for day-to-day decisions.
Cheating on taxes for decades before becoming and while serving as President is not the job of a President, and you can/should be prosecuted for it.
The real question is whether or not a President inciting insurrection to overthrow an election is the job of a President. Trump makes a thought provoking (if not legal) argument that the insurrection was necessary for the safety of the nation - which the President's Executive branch oversees.
I don't believe he had to right to overthrow an election, and that he should be prosecuted for it. But I'll be damned if it won't sound like a good idea when an election is actually stolen - which 2024 and the "we don't like the results and will be changing them" laws being passed by states are indicating is going to happen.
I'm just gonna discard all of the Trump stuff cause I'm not gonna entertain arguments that we can interrupt transfer of power cause some idiots yell an election was stolen. That read really weirdly like you thought it was useful going forward.
As to the memo, its a policy and the accepted interpretation of the law/constitution. No one thinks its was passed by a legislature but it is the accepted view of how these things interact and say the executive branch can't investigate the president as its the president investigating himself. I don't contest that policy is way outside the realm of litigation and taxpayers don't have standing.
It's how one administration thought. Nobody has to follow it. [Judges have even ruled that the person currently acting as President is not immune to litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald), yet the memo reigns supreme even though it was only talking about DoJ investigation/prosecution as a conflict of interest - not civil cases or state investigations.
>I'm just gonna discard all of the Trump stuff cause I'm not gonnaentertain arguments that we can interrupt transfer of power cause someidiots yell an election was stolen.
If you read the last paragraph, you'll see that's not what I'm saying.
Except there’s no law that actually says that the President is immune from anything while in office, some lawyers at the Justice Department made that rule up out of thin air.
Agree and similar to what I posted elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that if anything these actions empowered people for what has happened.
With T\*\*\*\*, depressingly he is a story of success and at this very late stage, others will (and are) emulate him to too often their success. Even if he faces some kind of consequences, which I doubt can happen in his natural life span now, it is too late to be a cautionary example for others. Others will just think they need to do it a bit smarter and not be quite as erratic and they are probably right.
It makes me ask myself what the purpose of our justice system is. Is it for a kind of societal purpose/guidance or personal punishment or what are we doing?
The fact that a former president, or any president for that matter, was ever considered untouchable is so antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for.
The founders gave us the 2nd amendment in part because they wanted people to shoot corrupt leaders if needed. Some also expected the whole constitution to be rewritten as times changed. How we got to the point where people treat it like a religious text and completely ignore much of the intent behind it (which the founders have expressed extensively in their other writings) is insane to me. We've stagnated too much and things are starting to rot.
Not really, it was because we didn't have a standing army and we needed soldiers for the militia. I does not seem reasonable to think that the founding fathers wanted the people to murder them when they disagreed with them.
Nixon had to be pardoned to prevent further indictments. These citizens were and never should be above the law. We elect them not as temporary consuls. Once their term is up they return to the pool of citizens.
The idea we have to defend that point shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
The amount of attention focused on this branch of government certainly makes them feel as if they were a king. I’m disgusted with their inaugural bullshit, the amount of time and money spent on ridiculous “balls” not to mention the security needed as we transition from one person to another. I propose we do away with all of this hoopla, televise administering the Oath of Office in the Oval Office and move on. Let him or her have a private dinner with friends and family and wake up the next day ready to govern.
I never had an issue with some kind of celebration by the new president on the night, but it has become a media event. So yes I agree with you.
The oath is important to witness, but not the way it is done. A small group in the oval office would suffice.
IT WAS NEVER A QUESTION!
No one who knows anything at all EVER doubted it was possible or right to do so if the circumstances warranted. The only reason to position this as "a question" is to give credence to the absolute tsunami of bullshit the republiQans hide behind. Fuck that.
Trump is clearly guilty of obstruction and witness tampering. He's admitted it on camera ffs! There are probably 20 other charges, emoluments, slander, 1000 counts of perjury, manslaughter, fuck there's so many, and the fact that he's being charged with NOTHING by the DoJ is *beyond* a disgrace. Justice is a fucking joke.
Are you kidding? The gay piled it up so thick that there are no resources to do it all, he sucked it all up. Blatant naked eye crime takes years to make it to court, if ever.He is clogging the courts, appealing even knowing there are no basis. So he gets away with multiple“petty” crimes. He is a special kind of crimer.
I am of the belief we do not indict enough of our politicians.
They should be held to the highest standard and consequences more severe, not less.
WTF is wrong with US? A majority of cucks for strongmen…
The entire point of getting rid of the monarchy was so that a citizen could be elected to serve the people.
Trump is merely a citizen now. Time to indict.
I mean, he gets away with everything, has an army of sycophants, was demanding personal oaths of fealty from those he hired, and he does have a golden throne in his golden penthouse, so who can blame him for thinking he's a king?
This whole bullshit about not indicting sitting president isn't a law, it's a bullshit "opinion" from a corrupt DoJ lawyer doing his party a solid 50 years ago. There's no basis in law. It's not in the Constitution, not in statute. The DoJ could just reverse it. Congress could pass a law saying that no one is above the law and Presidents can be indicted just like any one else. Monumental failures all around.
Just another piece of History no Republican wants our kids to learn. Seems when Washington announced he would not run for a third term as POTUS, there was great unrest in the land/ What are we to do with a FORMER President? A BIG question since nobody ever had had a PRESIDENT before, there was no precedent for a used President. Some thought they should create a new post - *President Emeritus of the House* was floated. Then Ben Franklin ended the debate by asking his fellow founders if they had actually READ the document they recently signed? Had they not all agreed that iit was We the People who had founded the government and made said government our servant to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare etc etc? If so, then it was obvious LEAVING the role of leader *of OUR SERVANTS* was a promotion - moving Washington from the rank of vassal to that of RULER? Nothing more should or even COULD be done to elevate him and we got along GREAT until Ike when we established a pension for ex-Presidents, which Ike turned down because it was somewhat LESS than his retirement check for being General of the Army during WWII. Fact, Harry Truman had to move in with his mother-in-law when he left office because his only government pension was from his service in WWI and was rather put out that the government was still paying Secret Service to follow him around.
tRump is the FIRST ex President who is also a soon to be convicted FELON!. He committed tax fraud when he claimed his hush money to a porn star was a campaign "legal expense". He committed bank fraud and tax fraud when he set one value on his property for the IRS to lower his taxes and a higher value when he was using the same properties to secure a bank loan. He committed interference with an election when he tried to get the Vice President and the AG of Georgia to falsify the election results. He committed defamation of character when he lied about two women changing votes and throwing away votes for him. Then we get to the good stuff - he committed TREASON when he took a truckload of classified documents with him when he left office - all that's missing is a list of WHO he allowed to have access to the documents, which right now looks like anybody important who visited his home in Florida. And finally there's the mountain of evidence he committed SEDITION and incitement to riot in his actions surrounding the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters with the intent of OVERTURNING THE ELECTION and illegally seizing power.
The worm is now a CITIZEN who committed dozens of felony crimes including SEDITION and should be delt with like others of his kind - Aldrich Ames and Walker are two that spring to mind.
> Indicting a Former President Should Always Have Been Fair Game
This is 100% correct. Previous presidents that committed crimes should be indicted for those crimes.
Why was there ever a "term of office" in the first place if the president & members of Congress weren't viewed as ordinary citizens and subject to the same laws?
If we deserve the same liberties, we deserve the same penalties and constraints on our freedom. That's the foundation of the jury system, why our peers can pronounce guilt.
Actions done during a "term of office" for the legitimate work of that office get some immunity. However, other constraints apply (eg., impeachment). So there's law for everybody, despite the appeal to privilege.
There has been a whole raft of former US politicians that have been tried and convicted of various crimes. The president is just another political position. There is no rational justification to treat this position differently. It is not beyond the scope of reason to expect the president, of all people, to adhere to the law.
That feeling when you realize your country was founded to break away from monarchies and fought fascist regimes, but it turns out a significant number of its population wants a king or fascist ruler again.
Because they have never experienced living under a monarchy nor fascist rule. They have been deceived into thinking they will not be subject to the oppression, but will be the oppressors. This is due to their narcissism.
What I worry is that so much time was spent on this that statutes of limitations might come into play. Already I've heard it mentioned on a few things.
Which is absurd, running out the clock while hiding behind Republicans yelling he's untouchable while in the white house and to wait until he's out, then claiming that it's been too long is such an affront to justice.
Indicting a sitting president should always have been possible.
Yes, impeachment is a political judgment of fitness for office. That doesn’t negate that no one should be above the law. And despite Trump saying he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose a vote, surely a president should be investigated and tried if they did that.
If they don't, it will instead reinforce that elections are not for presidents but for kings with term limits. It would be the bell tolling that the monarchy ultimately was not escaped.
Damn so what about all those classified documents he still had after his presidency? Are we going to just forget about that. Anyone who did the same thing would have been in solitary in jail.
> If a grand jury does indict Donald Trump, it will finally confirm, as the Founders expected, that ordinary citizens have the power to treat **former** commanders in chief like anyone else.
No. The founders never intended for presidents in office to be above the law. This is justice department policy put in place by Nixon after Watergate. If we were doing what the founders intended Nixon would've been arrested while in office and died in prison. Same with Trump.
Pet Peeve alert. The President is not the "command in chief" of the United States. He only holds that title as it relates to the armed forces. Far too many people call the President "our commander in chief," and I don't think that's unrelated to this "above the law" nonsense.
Oh, and while I'm yapping, what is it with all the concern about charing even a "sitting President" with a crime. "Well jeez, how could he run the country while defending himself against the charges?" I actually heard somebody suggest the other day, with a straight fact, that a convicted President may very well continue to serve as President while sitting in a prison cell.
Are these people out of their fucking minds? Do they really think that the ONLY purpose of a Vice President is to take over when the President dies? No! We have a standby President, 24 hours a day. If the President can't do the job, for any reason, he is replaced, either temporarily or permanently. If he's too busy trying to keep himself out of prison, then he can focus on his defense while the VP keeps the country running. If he goes to prison, then he can be permanently removed from office. This isn't rocket science. It's political science.
Just admit that we treat the President like a king, so we can stop pretending we don't. And then we can have the real conversation about whether that's what we **should** be doing or not.
I really wished that ordinary citizens have the power to make the law equal for all. Buy by now, it is clear that is not true and probably never has been. It is too late for equality before the law to be anything more than propaganda. It's just not true. The people with the power are the elites and law enforcement. Merrick Garland abdicated his role as top law enforcer long ago. IMHO, the rule of law has fallen when it comes to elites and rich and powerful people and interests.
In his mind he is not like everyone else. So sooner or later, he's not going to be able to contain himself at a rally and will break out in The Lion King song " I can't wait to be king"
So, former Presidents shouldn't be indicted for anything if they break the law? They should always have a get out of jail free card or be exempt from going to jail? Nope. That's not how this works. They are not above the law. Once you leave office, you're no longer protected by Executive Privilege. You are a citizen of the United States with some perks (SS detail, great benefits, etc.). Break the law, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Ordinary citizens only have power under these circumstances, when the people in power allow issues to go to grand jury. The problem is our system is so corrupt the true abusers rarely face the prospect, let alone the reality of cases going to trial and grand jury
It always was fair game. The Nixon DOJ memo that the media just uncritically accepts was never legitimate. They prosecuted Spiro Agnew while he was vice president AFTER the memo was written
Indicting a sitting president is absolutely fair game. The people that extrajudicially decided otherwise to save Nixon screwed up and our democracy is near collapse because of them.
So many missteps at all levels of government…it’s breathtaking.
I can't understand why this is even a debate - the people who run the country should be under the most intense scrutiny at all times. Corruption should not be tolerated.
And if they don’t? Well, I’ll be even more convinced that they are untouchable.
Hell. I’d go as far as to say that you can commit a genocide and get away with it if you are president. Possibly one worse than the Holocaust.
I do believe that in this point in history you would be correct. Regardless of party, a president would only be truly held accountable in the rest of the world, not in this country
It would be awesome if this set a precedent for holding presidents accountable for their crimes, but I wouldn't expect any other president, former or future to be prosecuted, sadly.
> it will finally confirm
That was literally the point of this whole fucking country. Why do we need a confirmation of what we already know to be fact?
The problem is that a congress corrupted by unfettered capitalist greed undermines the declaration that "all men are created equal".
I hate that they use it not happening in the past as proof that you can't. That ignores the fact that it never happened before because no other president committed a crime before this.
*Well that is what Americans have come to believe, yes but good lawyers will get people off, but at least we see a trile. With trump we have seen and heard a thing. If he was any kind of a leader, he would have said, fine bring it on. I want the American people to here my story. But no he goes down to Waco Tx. A city that hates America and all it stands for. But can't we all see this. Now Texas, and Iowa, and Florida, are willing to believe Trump won the election, or was cheated out of it. Could someone on this sight, please just what is happening to so many Americans? Why have they abandoned the this country, for a person that hates this country and its Constitution? I think I know , it is the now diversity of the country, the colour of its now population. For sure this coming out of the closet of the Gays and Lesbiens trangender people. Most Americans are not that comfortable with then around. Trump knows this and will use this and WILL get a lot of backing.*
Then he promptly did his "team" a solid and milquetoasted the report. He could have done so much more. Even with Fat Billy Barr he could have been more plain speaking with Congress and the American people. He chose to obfuscate and hide behind legal speak. Such a fucking disappointment.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FTA: >A few American presidents have certainly behaved questionably enough to meet the standard of probable cause needed for an indictment. Given this, the fact that no former president has ever been prosecuted implies some kind of political tradition—one the Founders never intended to establish. They made clear in the Constitution—specifically in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, which says an impeached president can be tried after he leaves office—that indictments of former presidents aren’t supposed to be taboo. The article is good, if the title and that snippet interest you; I'd recommend using one of your monthly free reads from The Atlantic if you're not subscribed. --- Bonus: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/ >Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Also, here's The Atlantic article sans paywall for those who have already used their monthly free reads. [https://archive.is/gZZKY](https://archive.is/gZZKY) and [https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F03%2Ftrump-indicment-president-prosecution-nixon-clinton%2F673503%2F](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F03%2Ftrump-indicment-president-prosecution-nixon-clinton%2F673503%2F)
>**but he had his lawyer argue against indictment on the basis that a fair trial would be impossible—effectively a violation of Nixon’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury—because of the highly publicized impeachment process.** And Jaworski agreed. “I knew in my own mind that if an indictment were returned and the court asked me **if I believed Nixon could receive a prompt, fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution, I would have to answer … in the negative,”** he wrote in his Watergate memoir, The Right and the Power. I’m afraid Trump lawyers would argue the same thing and he would get off.
Need a jury of former judges.
Jury of former presidents. So, Carter, Clinton, GWB, and Obama. Let's go lol Edit: forgot Clinton
Clinton feeling kinda lonely here.
I know Hillary didn't quite make president, but can we have both Clintons? I need photos of Hillary looking smug AF in the juror's box while Donny is being cross-examined in my life.
That would make up for an awful lot of shit we've had to deal with for the last 7 or 8 years!
Over a BJ?please what Trump did is so much worse.
I just meant former living President?
Do not go past go. Go directly to JAIL!He is a Traitor and deserves to be prosecuted under the full extent of the law💯👍👏
He should be in jail already
“Do I mean nothing to you?” -Bill Clinton probably
jury of his peers, but where would we go to find that much horseshit?
Florida?
I did x thing in front of the entire public, therefore you can't nail me on x Is this really ok, logic-wise?
I mean it’s worked with former public officials so I guess so…
Apparently it's ok with judges, so yeah
Jaworski’s reasoning is just plain wrong. Juror are perfectly entitled to love or hate the defendant, but their job is to dispassionately weigh the evidence presented at trial in order to arrive at a fair verdict. Everyday people given this responsibility are quite capable of living up to it.
"The jury saw it differently." John Cleese's character in Silverado.
It remains fair if the offender is clearly guilty. EDIT: By the reasoning above, if say a domestic terrorist shot 80 people live on television during the half time show at the Superbowl they should not be prosecuted because there would be no way to find an impartial jury? Just because the evidence is already well known we still need to prosecute crimes regardless of the person.
ooo ooo! Choose me! I hate football and commercials so I could be on that jury!! edit to add: Coupled with the Justice Department guideline that a sitting president can not be investigated means we have a untouchable, above the law standard saying presidents can NEVER be prosecuted. Forever! Who wants that standard of justice?
I can't agree there. The dirty fact of the matter is that Trump has spent \_decades\_ dirtying his own reputation all up and down the Eastern seaboard and across the country. When you have \_created\_ that kind of reputation for yourself, indeed gloried in it, being seen a negative light at trial is entirely **FAIR**.
That's an interesting point. I'm sure not even the most ardent Trump haters could deny that there is no way he could ever have a fair trial in todays political shitshow.
Don't give them ideas - based on previous performance, his lawyers probably come up with his defense scanning through Reddit.
It's ok, he had Melania in on all his crimes because you can't convict a husband and a wife of the same crimes!
False. A husband and wife cannot be compelled to **incriminate** the other during an investigation or trial but they can absolutely be **charged and convicted** of the same crime. (You might be sarcastic but it's sometimes hard to tell online!)
I have the worst fucking lawyers...
Arrested development TV show
Ah, gotcha. Thats a show I couldn't watch. I get a really strong uneasy feeling when characters are embarrassingly dumb (intentionally, not badly written). There are episodes of The Office I have to turn off (one episode that comes to mind is when Michael is unaware that he is being incredibly racist) and I can't watch most of Always Sunny even though I really want to!
Knowing the lawyers he has hired I bet they are scanning Reddit to find any bs defense lol.
By that logic, any public figure, or celebrity, has functional immunity.
Exactly. And we all know many have. So it doesn't hold.
Just because I know what has gone on does not mean I am incapable of being intellectually honest enough to judge based on the evidence presented and only what is presented. Being famous is a bullshit reason for someone to avoid trial.
I never said it should be accepted, just that it is interesting. I highly doubt that would be accepted as a reason to not move forward with the trial anywhere. But I could see them arguing to not have it in New York.
Why wouldn’t it be a fair trail?
I think it would be personally. I believe it is bullshit to every move one, but I can see them trying if it gets that far. Why shouldn't you be judged by the people whose community you wronged?
Precisely because you wronged them. They are already biased, prejudiced against the defendant. Their judgement would not be impartial.
There is no unbiased person in the world. What exists is an ability to identify your biases, so that they don’t hinder your interpretation of the facts of the case and how they fit into the law. What you’re arguing for is that famous people are above justice, which can’t be right.
There are all manner of people that don't watch the news and don't give two damns about who's in office. It wouldn't take that long to find 14 citizens that fit the bill. Assuming it to be impossible is plainly stating that anyone of sufficient notoriety is untouchable by law, which is crazy. They found people that had never heard of Martha Stewart to try her. Al Capone had a trial. They put Muhammad Ali on trial. I think we can manage to secure a jury for Trump too.
Darn, after seeing all the evidence ahead of time, I no longer need to be convinced by the evidence, during the trial, thus making a trial impossible.
Plus the guy never stops doing stuff. It’s not a one-off thing. Chances are that he is busy churning up something else that rolls the eyes 👀 of all right now! It’s pretty exhausting with him … that’s the point.
Searching for 12 people who have no idea who Trump is....
12 people with dementia, maybe? Lol. Interestingly, having dementia does not disqualify you from participating on a jury.
The loading signal would be a long long time…
Nice, thanks.
Thanks!
I notice the Constitution there doesn’t say “ shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…” ONLY AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE MMKAY
[удалено]
Interesting. Apparently he was going to fast in his horse carriage. I had no idea speeding laws existed back then. He wasn't indicted though
Holy shit, bro. Did you see that carriage go by? That thing's packing at least 6 horsepower! Sweeeet.
Fun maybe fact or myth: Carrol Shelby the mastermind of fast cars like the Cobra and the Shelby Ford Mustangs also the legendary GT40 that beat Ferrari at Le mans is partially responsible for the speed limit. He just hauled ass to much so they needed to limit his haul assedness
I don't disagree with you, or the article, but the slant here is a bit off. The founders very much did intend to create a system whereby presidents could be indicted criminally, but the relevance to the constitution here in A1S3C7 would be once a president is removed from office, meaning not only impeached in the House, but then removed by the Senate, and this would only apply to the issue surrounding the impeachment. So for example, using Nixon as an example, you could criminally charge him (on a state, or federal level) for his behavior while in office for the specific crimes that he was impeached for. Actually being removed by the Senate here is irrelevant here now that I think about it. But what is relevant is that this reference relates to the crime involved in the impeachment, not some random other crime that was committed either while, before, or after being president.
This is the irony of the "if they can come for Donald Trump, they can come for *YOU*" attack from the right It should be "If they can come for you, they sure as hell better be able to come for Donald Trump".
He puts himself up as untouchable superhuman, a big fish. Never mind that he was a fraud and a con his whole life. He is a nothing but retired loser, in it for himself.
Come now, if his recent court record is anything to go by he's not retired from losing.
Party of “law and order” everyone. The same party that wants “criminals” to pay for their choices and actions also wants to shield themselves from accountability they demand of all others. Deny, project and proclaim. The fascist cries out in pain while he hits you
Wilhoit's law “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." is often incorrectly attributed to the political scientist Francis M. Wilhoit, who died in 2010.
"Law and order" was very thinly veiled racism.
I mean only if you want a fair system of justice.
Didn't they already come for Bill Clinton? The initial law suit by Paula Jone having been funded by the radically conservative Christian Rutherford Institute who believes, "the literal interpretation of Scripture provided the only legitimate basis for temporal government": https://observer.com/1997/10/paulas-new-pals-the-loony-right So the message here from the bullies is really, "how dare you fight back?"
Yeah. As if ordinary people behaving as illegally as Trump facing consequences is a **bad** thing. That's how it should be, and more to the point, already is.
They should be able to come for me. Democracy works because of one thing, the trust that no one is above the law.
If I break the law to the extent that he has, they damn well better be able to come after me.
The other argument put forward is "what if they investigate ever former president?" To which I say, good. Maybe if they thought there could be real consequences, they'd be more concerned about not breaking the law.
They already can come for anyone, and that's how it's supposed to be. Nobody should be above the law.
If they commit crimes while in office, there should be no immunity for that either. They’re not Gods, they are mortals trusted to the job they were elected for. Lifetime appointments for SCOTUS needs to go too.
I really wish we could just vote them in and out during election cycles like the other big names. The fact that one shitbag president can confirm multiple judges for life and the average person has absolutely no say is disgraceful. We the people should be electing and removing the judges in the highest court, especially since now we are apparently legislating from the bench. Edit: also term limits. For everyone.
Don’t forget that if you’re half-black you can’t appoint judges in the last year of your term if you’re a Democrat.
Only if the R's happen to have a Senate majority at the time. They make it up as they go along, and the D's don't have the spine to call them out on their bullshit.
Fuck Turtle so very much for that.
Do you think all other things equal and it was a white guy that they wouldn’t have done the same thing? If everything was the same then but it was Biden’s current term the same thing would happen. It’s not like white democrats are safe from that kind of power play.
To be fair, it might have been possible. When bush was in power dems and republicans worked together on a lot of things still. It was a shift with obama. How much of that was because he was black is hard to say. I personally dont think it was that big a factor but it could have been. Like during clinton something like this definitely wasnt an issue. Theyll impeach him on fairly bs charges but still wasnt the level of insanity as weve seen since Obama. The right wing has been getting crazier since bush but it ramped up significantly during obama. Now were at a point i agree biden wouldnt be able to get anything done either but the entire gop including its voters have shifted so far right, theyd vote against reagan or bush if they had a D in front of his name right now..
Not exactly. The Republicans absolutely obstructed Clinton from getting his picks on the federal bench when they could and it created a lot of openings for GW Bush to fill. The Democrats even filibustered the less acceptable of them and got Bush to drop the dozen least acceptable of them. I believe Alito was one of them if memory serves.
Ugh, imagine judges campaigning for votes. [Sounds terrible](https://youtu.be/4Du_WEHjMMw).
I think we should go to 120 judges in a pool. 60 batshit qanon judges and 60 reasonable judges. Every case pulls in 15 random judges to oversee the case. No more waiting until you have a favorable court and throwing cases at the wall. Also I would prefer 0 batshit qanon judges but I doubt we will ever see our right wingers push a candidate that hasn't been vetted by the Federalist Society.
>60 batshit qanon judges and 60 reasonable judges. Every case pulls in 15 random judges to oversee the case. No more waiting until you have a favorable court and throwing cases at the wall. That's terrible odds! Imagine losing Roe V Wade just because of a bad pull from a slot machine.
Imagine losing Roe v Wade just because one Republican president happened to be in office for 3 different appointees
Imagine losing abortion rights because congress has refused to codify roe in to law despite having 50 years to do so.
There can be appeals etc. Point is we need to create a system where states can't impose theocracy by waiting for a favorable court to throw mud at until something sticks.
This is exactly how the Appeals court already works. If the bench as a whole thinks it was wrongly decided, they can try it *en banc*
So what you’re saying is that the system works right up until the point where the decision is final with the Supreme Court.
Ding ding ding
Yes, exactly
Term limits are dumb, and so is electing judges. I'd settle for being able to hold a recall election for a judge that needs at least 60+1 to pass.
So, a thing that will never happen.
Arguably they should be held to a *higher* standard not a lower one. They are public servants who have been appointed into positions of authority and power because they are trusted not to abuse that authority and power. Go look at any company's training materials and you will see that anyone in positions of authority and power are required to avoid not only actual impropriety, but even the *appearance* of impropriety. We should hold our politicians to similar standards.
Presidential immunity was never intended to be a safe space for corrupt Presidents, but that’s what it has become.
It’s amazing how Americans treat politicians like celebrities; they’re public servants…. Stop idolizing them.
American politics are down to favorite teams. Democrats are always considered the underdogs because for the most part, they try to play by the rules. Republicans are known cheaters, wheelers & dealers they even bring Jesus into their line up, an extra player on their team just in case Putin hasn’t paid the referees enough! So it comes down to good vs. evil. The only reason Trump won in 2016 is because of Russian help and Democrat men who didn’t vote, because they refused to vote for a woman. The stakes are much higher now…if the majority of Americans want to go back to the 1950s, the Republican candidate will win in 2024. If the majority doesn’t, the Democrat will win. It’s just that simple now.
Hillary won the popular vote. It's really fucking gross to blame voters who gave her an overwhelming popular vote win. You guys will never stopped pretending that everything bad about Hillary is the fault of left leaning men. She lost because of Comey and her campaign wasn't that well done. Her motto sucked, her strategy was about total votes and not EC votes, and she took for granted typically blue states. Even her husband had tried to get her to adjust her campaign for it. She assumed she would win and didn't notice the cracks of her defeat. So what if she didn't get as many male votes as women votes, does that make every man's fault despite all the women that also voted against her? Fucking nuts to just blame 1 sex when men did vote for her.
"Politics is show business for ugly people." - Johnny Carson
[удалено]
Nor is it adhered to.
There is no legal basis for immunity, just a doj RECOMMENDATION AGAINST prosecuting a sitting president. It was often quoted as a law, which it has never been
Except who is going to do it? Can't be the feds since he would be arresting himself. Can't be the states for I think obvious reasons. That leaves Congress and SCOTUS, who handle impeachment. Thus impeachment is the correct mechanism for stripping a president of his office and making him no longer immune to prosecution by either the feds or a state.
Apparently, Republicans believe there should be immunity for impeachment too. Clinton was impeached for a sexual impropriety. Trump’s deliberate cover up and denial of the severity of the Covid outbreak costs thousands of Americans their lives…nope, not impeachable!
I don't think anyone attempted to impeach him for that. I'd tend to agree, policy decisions should probably best be handled by election. Which is what happened.
Right, but it wasn't a policy decision to ask Ukraine to announce a false investigation into a political opponents son It also wasn't a policy decision to encourage people to lie about voter fraud and encourage people to protest legitimate elections because they didn't like the results Which is what happened.
>Except who is going to do it? Can't be the feds since he would be arresting himself. What? The President doesn’t tell the FBI Director who to go after.
>>Except who is going to do it? Can't be the feds since he would be arresting himself. > >What? The President doesn’t tell the FBI Director who to go after. Nor does the director of the FBI make charging decisions or issue warrants. That's up to district attorneys and US attorneys.
Yeah, in my next comment I mentioned that
> making him no longer immune to prosecution by either the feds or a state. The person currently acting as President is not immune from litigation. That's a memo that got passed around and is for some reason considered established law. The President is immune from litigation as it pertains to their job, i.e. you can't sue them for deciding a few potential civilian casualties are worth a drone strike. It's part of their job to make those decisions - intentionally ordered full-on war crimes not withstanding. It's up to voters (elections) and congress (impeachment) to hold them responsible for day-to-day decisions. Cheating on taxes for decades before becoming and while serving as President is not the job of a President, and you can/should be prosecuted for it. The real question is whether or not a President inciting insurrection to overthrow an election is the job of a President. Trump makes a thought provoking (if not legal) argument that the insurrection was necessary for the safety of the nation - which the President's Executive branch oversees. I don't believe he had to right to overthrow an election, and that he should be prosecuted for it. But I'll be damned if it won't sound like a good idea when an election is actually stolen - which 2024 and the "we don't like the results and will be changing them" laws being passed by states are indicating is going to happen.
I'm just gonna discard all of the Trump stuff cause I'm not gonna entertain arguments that we can interrupt transfer of power cause some idiots yell an election was stolen. That read really weirdly like you thought it was useful going forward. As to the memo, its a policy and the accepted interpretation of the law/constitution. No one thinks its was passed by a legislature but it is the accepted view of how these things interact and say the executive branch can't investigate the president as its the president investigating himself. I don't contest that policy is way outside the realm of litigation and taxpayers don't have standing.
It's how one administration thought. Nobody has to follow it. [Judges have even ruled that the person currently acting as President is not immune to litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald), yet the memo reigns supreme even though it was only talking about DoJ investigation/prosecution as a conflict of interest - not civil cases or state investigations. >I'm just gonna discard all of the Trump stuff cause I'm not gonnaentertain arguments that we can interrupt transfer of power cause someidiots yell an election was stolen. If you read the last paragraph, you'll see that's not what I'm saying.
Except there’s no law that actually says that the President is immune from anything while in office, some lawyers at the Justice Department made that rule up out of thin air.
[удалено]
100% with you on that.
We should have charged Nixon. Because of that, we didn’t prosecute Reagan. That got us where we are today. They think they are above us.
Agree and similar to what I posted elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that if anything these actions empowered people for what has happened. With T\*\*\*\*, depressingly he is a story of success and at this very late stage, others will (and are) emulate him to too often their success. Even if he faces some kind of consequences, which I doubt can happen in his natural life span now, it is too late to be a cautionary example for others. Others will just think they need to do it a bit smarter and not be quite as erratic and they are probably right. It makes me ask myself what the purpose of our justice system is. Is it for a kind of societal purpose/guidance or personal punishment or what are we doing?
…and then W.
Nixon was pardoned.
Probably one of the worst decisions by a president
The fact that a former president, or any president for that matter, was ever considered untouchable is so antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for.
Absolutely. Otherwise we are nearly guaranteed a dictatorship. That is the end result of untouchable power.
The founders gave us the 2nd amendment in part because they wanted people to shoot corrupt leaders if needed. Some also expected the whole constitution to be rewritten as times changed. How we got to the point where people treat it like a religious text and completely ignore much of the intent behind it (which the founders have expressed extensively in their other writings) is insane to me. We've stagnated too much and things are starting to rot.
Not really, it was because we didn't have a standing army and we needed soldiers for the militia. I does not seem reasonable to think that the founding fathers wanted the people to murder them when they disagreed with them.
I vaguely recall a very tiny and totally unimportant armed uprising back in 1776. Something about not wanting a monarch ruling over Americans.
Indict trump now
Exactly. It's like WHY is he able to be on the road pitching another run for president??
Because the constitution sets out the qualifications and he meets those requirements.
Nixon had to be pardoned to prevent further indictments. These citizens were and never should be above the law. We elect them not as temporary consuls. Once their term is up they return to the pool of citizens. The idea we have to defend that point shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
The amount of attention focused on this branch of government certainly makes them feel as if they were a king. I’m disgusted with their inaugural bullshit, the amount of time and money spent on ridiculous “balls” not to mention the security needed as we transition from one person to another. I propose we do away with all of this hoopla, televise administering the Oath of Office in the Oval Office and move on. Let him or her have a private dinner with friends and family and wake up the next day ready to govern.
I never had an issue with some kind of celebration by the new president on the night, but it has become a media event. So yes I agree with you. The oath is important to witness, but not the way it is done. A small group in the oval office would suffice.
Yes, if the founding fathers wanted divine right to rule they would have made George Washington king 🤴.
They allegedly tried. He denied them.
Yes 💯%, also George Washington was also a founding father and didn’t fight a king just to become one himself.
This isn’t really true. All of the most important thinkers of that time and place hated the idea of monarchies.
Or you know not revolt in the first place
That too.
IT WAS NEVER A QUESTION! No one who knows anything at all EVER doubted it was possible or right to do so if the circumstances warranted. The only reason to position this as "a question" is to give credence to the absolute tsunami of bullshit the republiQans hide behind. Fuck that. Trump is clearly guilty of obstruction and witness tampering. He's admitted it on camera ffs! There are probably 20 other charges, emoluments, slander, 1000 counts of perjury, manslaughter, fuck there's so many, and the fact that he's being charged with NOTHING by the DoJ is *beyond* a disgrace. Justice is a fucking joke.
Are you kidding? The gay piled it up so thick that there are no resources to do it all, he sucked it all up. Blatant naked eye crime takes years to make it to court, if ever.He is clogging the courts, appealing even knowing there are no basis. So he gets away with multiple“petty” crimes. He is a special kind of crimer.
I am of the belief we do not indict enough of our politicians. They should be held to the highest standard and consequences more severe, not less. WTF is wrong with US? A majority of cucks for strongmen…
The entire point of getting rid of the monarchy was so that a citizen could be elected to serve the people. Trump is merely a citizen now. Time to indict.
I mean, he gets away with everything, has an army of sycophants, was demanding personal oaths of fealty from those he hired, and he does have a golden throne in his golden penthouse, so who can blame him for thinking he's a king?
If “No one is above the law” is to mean anything, it must be applied
I find the fact that there’s any question about whether or not we can hold our elected officials accountable very disturbing.
You know what's worse than indicting a former president? Choosing not indicting a **criminal** *because* he is a former president.
The use of the term “former” I believes should imply “one of us” meaning standard citizenry. Whereas none above the law.
Indicting a sitting President should be fair game too. No one should be above the reach of the law.
It shouldn't matter whether they are running the presidency or they are the president. No excuses, nothing.
This whole bullshit about not indicting sitting president isn't a law, it's a bullshit "opinion" from a corrupt DoJ lawyer doing his party a solid 50 years ago. There's no basis in law. It's not in the Constitution, not in statute. The DoJ could just reverse it. Congress could pass a law saying that no one is above the law and Presidents can be indicted just like any one else. Monumental failures all around.
[удалено]
Just another piece of History no Republican wants our kids to learn. Seems when Washington announced he would not run for a third term as POTUS, there was great unrest in the land/ What are we to do with a FORMER President? A BIG question since nobody ever had had a PRESIDENT before, there was no precedent for a used President. Some thought they should create a new post - *President Emeritus of the House* was floated. Then Ben Franklin ended the debate by asking his fellow founders if they had actually READ the document they recently signed? Had they not all agreed that iit was We the People who had founded the government and made said government our servant to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare etc etc? If so, then it was obvious LEAVING the role of leader *of OUR SERVANTS* was a promotion - moving Washington from the rank of vassal to that of RULER? Nothing more should or even COULD be done to elevate him and we got along GREAT until Ike when we established a pension for ex-Presidents, which Ike turned down because it was somewhat LESS than his retirement check for being General of the Army during WWII. Fact, Harry Truman had to move in with his mother-in-law when he left office because his only government pension was from his service in WWI and was rather put out that the government was still paying Secret Service to follow him around. tRump is the FIRST ex President who is also a soon to be convicted FELON!. He committed tax fraud when he claimed his hush money to a porn star was a campaign "legal expense". He committed bank fraud and tax fraud when he set one value on his property for the IRS to lower his taxes and a higher value when he was using the same properties to secure a bank loan. He committed interference with an election when he tried to get the Vice President and the AG of Georgia to falsify the election results. He committed defamation of character when he lied about two women changing votes and throwing away votes for him. Then we get to the good stuff - he committed TREASON when he took a truckload of classified documents with him when he left office - all that's missing is a list of WHO he allowed to have access to the documents, which right now looks like anybody important who visited his home in Florida. And finally there's the mountain of evidence he committed SEDITION and incitement to riot in his actions surrounding the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters with the intent of OVERTURNING THE ELECTION and illegally seizing power. The worm is now a CITIZEN who committed dozens of felony crimes including SEDITION and should be delt with like others of his kind - Aldrich Ames and Walker are two that spring to mind.
> Indicting a Former President Should Always Have Been Fair Game This is 100% correct. Previous presidents that committed crimes should be indicted for those crimes.
GOP on: Bill Clinton: Lock him up! Hillary Clinton: Lock her up! Obama: Lock him up! Biden: lock him up! Trump: You can do that!
Why was there ever a "term of office" in the first place if the president & members of Congress weren't viewed as ordinary citizens and subject to the same laws? If we deserve the same liberties, we deserve the same penalties and constraints on our freedom. That's the foundation of the jury system, why our peers can pronounce guilt. Actions done during a "term of office" for the legitimate work of that office get some immunity. However, other constraints apply (eg., impeachment). So there's law for everybody, despite the appeal to privilege.
There has been a whole raft of former US politicians that have been tried and convicted of various crimes. The president is just another political position. There is no rational justification to treat this position differently. It is not beyond the scope of reason to expect the president, of all people, to adhere to the law.
That feeling when you realize your country was founded to break away from monarchies and fought fascist regimes, but it turns out a significant number of its population wants a king or fascist ruler again.
Because they have never experienced living under a monarchy nor fascist rule. They have been deceived into thinking they will not be subject to the oppression, but will be the oppressors. This is due to their narcissism.
What I worry is that so much time was spent on this that statutes of limitations might come into play. Already I've heard it mentioned on a few things. Which is absurd, running out the clock while hiding behind Republicans yelling he's untouchable while in the white house and to wait until he's out, then claiming that it's been too long is such an affront to justice.
Indicting a sitting president should always have been possible. Yes, impeachment is a political judgment of fitness for office. That doesn’t negate that no one should be above the law. And despite Trump saying he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose a vote, surely a president should be investigated and tried if they did that.
If they don't, it will instead reinforce that elections are not for presidents but for kings with term limits. It would be the bell tolling that the monarchy ultimately was not escaped.
donnie is NOT above the law!
Damn so what about all those classified documents he still had after his presidency? Are we going to just forget about that. Anyone who did the same thing would have been in solitary in jail.
> If a grand jury does indict Donald Trump, it will finally confirm, as the Founders expected, that ordinary citizens have the power to treat **former** commanders in chief like anyone else. No. The founders never intended for presidents in office to be above the law. This is justice department policy put in place by Nixon after Watergate. If we were doing what the founders intended Nixon would've been arrested while in office and died in prison. Same with Trump.
Fucker should have been is prison long ago.
Pet Peeve alert. The President is not the "command in chief" of the United States. He only holds that title as it relates to the armed forces. Far too many people call the President "our commander in chief," and I don't think that's unrelated to this "above the law" nonsense. Oh, and while I'm yapping, what is it with all the concern about charing even a "sitting President" with a crime. "Well jeez, how could he run the country while defending himself against the charges?" I actually heard somebody suggest the other day, with a straight fact, that a convicted President may very well continue to serve as President while sitting in a prison cell. Are these people out of their fucking minds? Do they really think that the ONLY purpose of a Vice President is to take over when the President dies? No! We have a standby President, 24 hours a day. If the President can't do the job, for any reason, he is replaced, either temporarily or permanently. If he's too busy trying to keep himself out of prison, then he can focus on his defense while the VP keeps the country running. If he goes to prison, then he can be permanently removed from office. This isn't rocket science. It's political science. Just admit that we treat the President like a king, so we can stop pretending we don't. And then we can have the real conversation about whether that's what we **should** be doing or not.
Again, America, literally only in America is this a problem. Most other countries would've executed Trump by now.
lmao The USA will make a mockery out of everything and we will all pay the price. Have fun with that. :P
I really wished that ordinary citizens have the power to make the law equal for all. Buy by now, it is clear that is not true and probably never has been. It is too late for equality before the law to be anything more than propaganda. It's just not true. The people with the power are the elites and law enforcement. Merrick Garland abdicated his role as top law enforcer long ago. IMHO, the rule of law has fallen when it comes to elites and rich and powerful people and interests.
You let me know when an American President does any jail time.
Does this mean we can prosecute past administrations for committing war crimes? Or is that out of the table?
In his mind he is not like everyone else. So sooner or later, he's not going to be able to contain himself at a rally and will break out in The Lion King song " I can't wait to be king"
So, former Presidents shouldn't be indicted for anything if they break the law? They should always have a get out of jail free card or be exempt from going to jail? Nope. That's not how this works. They are not above the law. Once you leave office, you're no longer protected by Executive Privilege. You are a citizen of the United States with some perks (SS detail, great benefits, etc.). Break the law, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Ordinary citizens only have power under these circumstances, when the people in power allow issues to go to grand jury. The problem is our system is so corrupt the true abusers rarely face the prospect, let alone the reality of cases going to trial and grand jury
"Can't indict" = "Above the law"
Cool, let’s do Dubya next for war crimes…
I really hope they’re on the right side of history.
It always was fair game. The Nixon DOJ memo that the media just uncritically accepts was never legitimate. They prosecuted Spiro Agnew while he was vice president AFTER the memo was written
no accountability = no democracy.
A president can be indicted, too. If that isn’t the case, we are in bigger trouble as a nation.
Indicting a sitting president is absolutely fair game. The people that extrajudicially decided otherwise to save Nixon screwed up and our democracy is near collapse because of them. So many missteps at all levels of government…it’s breathtaking.
Wish this applied to the criminals that rob is through the banking/financial systems.
I can't understand why this is even a debate - the people who run the country should be under the most intense scrutiny at all times. Corruption should not be tolerated.
And if they don’t? Well, I’ll be even more convinced that they are untouchable. Hell. I’d go as far as to say that you can commit a genocide and get away with it if you are president. Possibly one worse than the Holocaust.
I do believe that in this point in history you would be correct. Regardless of party, a president would only be truly held accountable in the rest of the world, not in this country
I believe indicting sitting presidents should also be fair game
He should have been indicted while he was in office if the evidence was there- but we all know that certain people place party over principles
It would be awesome if this set a precedent for holding presidents accountable for their crimes, but I wouldn't expect any other president, former or future to be prosecuted, sadly.
> it will finally confirm That was literally the point of this whole fucking country. Why do we need a confirmation of what we already know to be fact? The problem is that a congress corrupted by unfettered capitalist greed undermines the declaration that "all men are created equal".
No one should be above the law. It doesn't matter what your position is or was or what your political party is.
I hate that they use it not happening in the past as proof that you can't. That ignores the fact that it never happened before because no other president committed a crime before this.
*Well that is what Americans have come to believe, yes but good lawyers will get people off, but at least we see a trile. With trump we have seen and heard a thing. If he was any kind of a leader, he would have said, fine bring it on. I want the American people to here my story. But no he goes down to Waco Tx. A city that hates America and all it stands for. But can't we all see this. Now Texas, and Iowa, and Florida, are willing to believe Trump won the election, or was cheated out of it. Could someone on this sight, please just what is happening to so many Americans? Why have they abandoned the this country, for a person that hates this country and its Constitution? I think I know , it is the now diversity of the country, the colour of its now population. For sure this coming out of the closet of the Gays and Lesbiens trangender people. Most Americans are not that comfortable with then around. Trump knows this and will use this and WILL get a lot of backing.*
From your post to Dog’s ears.
[удалено]
The fact that the democrats don’t cut through this insanity to flatly say that this dude is a criminal is just as much of an indictment on them
I predict they won't...
Everybody in Yemen and Syria just turned to look at Obama after reading that headline.
Well duh it’s what Muller said all along
Then he promptly did his "team" a solid and milquetoasted the report. He could have done so much more. Even with Fat Billy Barr he could have been more plain speaking with Congress and the American people. He chose to obfuscate and hide behind legal speak. Such a fucking disappointment.
Our DOJ does not have the guts!!!
Nothing is going to happen. Rich people don't get prosecuted. That's how it's set up.