upvote

points

by wmf9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby VladVladikoff8 hours ago|
next
[-]
Why would that happen if it didn’t happen when they had 4 years to do it the first time? Seems unlikely.
reply
upvoteby kube-system8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don't think it will happen for ideological reasons. Despite his lack of respect for the decorum of US democracy, most others have too much respect for it to start putting former leaders in prison.

However, his second term has been a lot different than his first. The first term had mostly just allegations of personal misconduct. The second term has been marked by a much more organized and systematic dismantling of the administrative state in illegal ways, which has been a lot more impactful.

reply
upvoteby komali252 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I strongly doubt any American top leader will ever go to prison. That's something that gets decided by American top leaders, who are very aware of what happens when you open that Pandora's box: look at countries like Taiwan or South Korea, where it seems like basically any government position ends in a prison cell.
reply
upvoteby deaux8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So the "decorum of US democracy" means that a president can murder, rape, pillage and raid, yet should not be put into prison?
reply
upvoteby kube-system7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The US political apparatus has a lot of unwritten standards that are followed out of tradition. While people might vehemently disapprove of how Trump has pushed or blown past those limits, doing the same thing to achieve accountability might set a new lower bar for those traditions, rather than restoring them.

I don't think we want to end up with 57 supreme court justices at the end of this, and a Korean-style tradition of the presidency-to-prison pipeline.

I think it is probably better to have a system that can restore/maintain a socio-political focus on professionalism.

reply
upvoteby deaux7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
A lot of pretty words to give a dressed up version of "yes". That's what you're saying: Yes, it's a good thing if a US president can murder, rape and pillage without going to prison. Where do you sraw the line? Raping 10 children? 100? You're making it sound as if there isn't one.

> I don't think we want to end up with 57 supreme court justices at the end of this, and a Korean-style tradition of the presidency-to-prison pipeline.

Those presidents going to prison did a coup to stay in power or had their personal shaman run the country behind the scenes. Of course you want a "to prison" pipeline for such cases if you're looking to stay a stable, welfaring country.

> I think it is probably better to have a system that can restore/maintain a socio-political focus on professionalism.

Correct, which is why the law needs to be applied equally. That's the fundamental basis of the rule of law. Otherwise it's worth nothing.

reply
upvoteby kube-system6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah, in some hypothetical situation where a leader is directly involved in a violent crime, sure, I don't think there would be any issue drawing a line there.

But that isn't what we're talking about here -- we're talking about actions taken related to his official duties. That is an inherently politicized situation where even the textual rule of law does provide for special allowances precisely to discourage political opponents from abusing the rule of law as a political weapon.

> Of course you want a "to prison" pipeline for such cases if you're looking to stay a stable, welfaring country.

I think the evidence around the world shows that precisely the opposite is true.

reply
upvoteby howunfortunate7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's much better than the South American alternative of throwing the former president in prison every single time the party switches.

Leaders do a lot of things and laws are complicated, lawfare is stupidly easy.

reply
upvoteby mixmastamyk8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The Republicans that shielded him will be out of office and also he is a lot less popular now.
reply
upvoteby vlyan8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
he was not particularly popular at the end of his first term. mainstream right was not pleased with the bad optics of january 6, young right was not pleased that MAGA became MIGA and "build the wall!" became "build what wall?". the early days of COVID fascism happened under him as well. it's fairly obscure lore now, but he'd lost all that deplorable alt right support that supposedly got him nominated and elected in the first place. for example: https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-mag...

he would've never got reelected if the democrats of 2021-2024 resembled democrats of 2008. his reelection was a violently retarded response to the clown world antics of that era.

reply
upvoteby mandeepj8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Why would that happen if it didn’t happen when they had 4 years to do it the first time?

Not saying it will certainly happen, but there will be different people at helm this time, and his more crimes are out now.

reply
upvoteby joe_the_user8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
He blanket pardons Vance and everyone around him. He resigns in the last month and Vance blanket pardons him.
reply
upvoteby stouset8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The guy who now has complete and total immunity thanks to the Supreme Court?
reply
upvoteby root_axis8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not complete and total immunity. It's presumptive immunity for official presidential acts.

Prosecutors "just" have to establish that the criminal behavior is not an official act, of which there are plenty such examples.

reply