Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Ehhhhhhh, okay so putting aside the fact I think that the US' democracy is not particularly democratic, just stable...
The entire game here is peaceful exchange of power. When you are in office, if you can anticipate being jailed or killed when you exit office, you are effectively creating a dictatorship. Because whomever is in office then has to fight to the literal death to remain in power, and violently suppress political opponents because its your fucking neck if you lose.
This is a case where the law says (as far as we know) Presidents are not immune from prosecution, but part of the game is that the Presidents shouldn't do anything [b]overtly criminal.[/b] Every President has almost certainly broken laws of some kind, guaranteed. But the response is to blink and say it's a part of the job so you don't have a civil war every time someone's term is up.
This is why the Democrats rolled over when they won the 2000 election and gave it up anyways. The sanctity of the system was more important to them than winning.
Trump fucked that entire process up. Not only has he repeatedly threatened to jail political opponents, but he's flagrantly committed crimes his entire life and just got away with them because he's a megarich coastal elite and was above the law. But he's disrupted the system so much the DOJ finally said "fuck it we're taking him out" since well, he has committed every crime ever and is a pretty easy target.
Their hope is that he's an anomaly, and that if he gets prosecuted and put away, the system will return to stability. Iiiiii am not so sure.
The entire game here is peaceful exchange of power. When you are in office, if you can anticipate being jailed or killed when you exit office, you are effectively creating a dictatorship. Because whomever is in office then has to fight to the literal death to remain in power, and violently suppress political opponents because its your fucking neck if you lose.
This is a case where the law says (as far as we know) Presidents are not immune from prosecution, but part of the game is that the Presidents shouldn't do anything [b]overtly criminal.[/b] Every President has almost certainly broken laws of some kind, guaranteed. But the response is to blink and say it's a part of the job so you don't have a civil war every time someone's term is up.
This is why the Democrats rolled over when they won the 2000 election and gave it up anyways. The sanctity of the system was more important to them than winning.
Trump fucked that entire process up. Not only has he repeatedly threatened to jail political opponents, but he's flagrantly committed crimes his entire life and just got away with them because he's a megarich coastal elite and was above the law. But he's disrupted the system so much the DOJ finally said "fuck it we're taking him out" since well, he has committed every crime ever and is a pretty easy target.
Their hope is that he's an anomaly, and that if he gets prosecuted and put away, the system will return to stability. Iiiiii am not so sure.
View 4 more replies »
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@Tastyfrzz Yes, and also his way of dealing with the charges is extremely funny.
RockerDad · M
@CountScrofula my concern is future presidents and members of congress, who are in middle school or high school now, who are watching all of this and absorbing it, and are thinking this is normal behavior of Trump, MGT, Matt Goetz, etc, because they haven’t seen any different since they have started paying attention to politics. They think it’s perfectly ok to scream out in the middle of State Of The Union addresses, or attack capitols and state houses if you are unhappy with the result of an election or policy.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@RockerDad Hell he's modelling bad behaviour for his colleagues. When you break unwritten rules, they don't get rewritten for a very long time. (ignoring the many actual laws he broke) Anyone who follows them is a dope who is going to lose. Dude hit fast-forward on the move from democracy to autocracy. It's not an inevitability but it's certainly the direction of things.
RockerDad · M
The question of presidential immunity was settled law fifty years ago when Nixon tried to claim the same thing. Nixon tried to say that anything was legal, if the person doing it was the president. It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now. It’s especially important now to make this clear, because Trump makes Nixon look like a choir boy by comparison.
RockerDad · M
@whowasthatmaskedman I think Trump is under the impression that the three judges he installed during his presidency will do his bidding simply because he appointed them. I was really concerned at first that that would actually be the case, but those three have shown themselves to be surprisingly independent at times. It’s actually been older judges, like Clarence Thomas, who seem to show much less integrity.
ElwoodBlues · M
No immunity, because nobody is above the law.
It is NEVER part of a public official's job to break the law, so the "part of their job" proviso is irrelevant.
AND. The higher and more powerful a public official is, the more their conduct should be irreproachable and above suspicion. A president should never be skating on thin legal ice.
It is NEVER part of a public official's job to break the law, so the "part of their job" proviso is irrelevant.
AND. The higher and more powerful a public official is, the more their conduct should be irreproachable and above suspicion. A president should never be skating on thin legal ice.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
NerdyPotato · M
Beau of the Fifth Column did a good video on that. In short: it would mean there are no consequences for holding onto power by any means necessary even after being voted out. If the Supreme Court would decide that the president has full immunity, it becomes possible to have Biden and then Harris in the Whitehouse for potentially the next few decades. He highly doubts they'll risk that.
BohemianBoo · M
Corporalcolleague · 61-69, M
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
bijouxbroussard · F
Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M
GlitterEater · 36-40, F
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
olderuncle944 · 70-79, M
Corporalcolleague · 61-69, M
@olderuncle944 wbich candidate Trump would order up in a heartbeat if re-elected...and his rabid base approves.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jimjim1969 · M
nudistsueaz · 61-69, F
22Michelle · 61-69, T
BizSuitStacy · M
Historically, I would have said no, but the precedent has been established.
pdockal · 56-60, M
Not ANY .... like murder or rape