4 ms·

> But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently forgetting t

by w4 7y ago

> But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to prosecute. You’re mostly right on tax policy, though a lot of tax policy is set by guidance on and interpretation of the statutes, which the President can influence since Treasury is part of the Executive. On the other hand, if we set aside the politics of prosecuting an ex-President for a moment (that debate could go on and on), the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the President. It would be in those candidates’ power to set that prosecutorial agenda for the DOJ if elected.

lvh 7y ago
That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. (Finally, I’m guessing we also agree that we’re not an statute interpretation or a regulation away from Amazon paying, let’s say, 10% of their SEC-reported profits in taxes.)
- w4 7y ago
  > both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. Sure. But that’s a political judgement, not a statement about the actual powers of the Executive, which is what you were talking about above. It’s within the President’s power to instruct the AG to pursue a particular case, and if the AG refuses then the President may replace them. Whether or not that’s appropriate, politically tenable, or might expose a President to action by the Legislative Branch, is a totally different question.
  - lvh 7y ago
    Sure, yep, you’re right, no argument here, I was definitely muddling the line between what the president can do and what they can probably get away with. “Launch nukes” is probably another example in that category. Thanks!

by w4 7y ago

lvh 7y ago

That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. (Finally, I’m guessing we also agree that we’re not an statute interpretation or a regulation away from Amazon paying, let’s say, 10% of their SEC-reported profits in taxes.)

w4 7y ago
> both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. Sure. But that’s a political judgement, not a statement about the actual powers of the Executive, which is what you were talking about above. It’s within the President’s power to instruct the AG to pursue a particular case, and if the AG refuses then the President may replace them. Whether or not that’s appropriate, politically tenable, or might expose a President to action by the Legislative Branch, is a totally different question.
- lvh 7y ago
  Sure, yep, you’re right, no argument here, I was definitely muddling the line between what the president can do and what they can probably get away with. “Launch nukes” is probably another example in that category. Thanks!