8 ms·

Cato the younger for forcing Caesar to cross the Rubicon?

thom 4y ago
Yes. By refusing to come to an entirely reasonable settlement which allowed Caesar to return from Gaul peacefully and without being prosecuted. By working tirelessly to put a wedge between Pompey and Caesar.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - duxup 4y ago
    > has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents Has this ever been tested often? The President generally has a lot of legal immunity and latitude. I don’t think that’s “tradition” where people choose not to prosecute the president, it’s just the law. Exceed that and every president is potentially at risk…
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      > Has this ever been tested often? Nixon comes to mind immediately. He was formally pardoned just to make sure he wasn't prosecuted. Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached (though not removed from office), but were never prosecuted for the (alleged) crimes that led to impeachment. The Harding administration was notoriously corrupt, and he would almost certainly have been impeached had he not died in office. Reagan was accused of violating the law in the Iran-Contra affair, but was never prosecuted. There are undoubtedly other examples that aren't coming to mind immediately, but yeah, I'd say the principle has been fairly well tested. To turn it around, no former President has ever been prosecuted after leaving office, to my knowledge, and it wasn't because none of them committed crimes.
      - duxup 4y ago
        I’ve heard of those, but I haven’t heard of the rule.
        krisoft 4y ago
        > I haven’t heard of the rule. Nobody said anything about a rule. The comment you initially responded mentioned a tradition. Those are two different things. A tradition is where people were doing (or not doing, as in this case) something in the past, long enough and consistently enough that it become recognised as a thing.
        duxup 4y ago
        I haven’t heard of this tradition.
        bdw5204 4y ago
        During the 2016 campaign, one of the norms Trump was criticized, for breaking by both left and right was the norm that you don't prosecute your political opponents.[0][1] Specifically this was in the context of his campaign promise to "lock her up" ("her" being his opponent Hillary Clinton), a promise he didn't bother trying to keep while he was in office. [0]: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/donald-trump-hillary-... [1]: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12232608/republican-convention-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up https://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12232608/republican-convention...
        duxup 4y ago
        I don’t know that I agree with the whole narrative. Nixon was pardoned, but the reason is that Nixon they were worried local and federal officials could act. I feel like that situation has it both ways. No tradition was protecting him so Ford acted. Trump not prosecuting Clinton seems like it could just as easily be because they didn’t think they could get a conviction and frankly Trumps opinion on legal matters seems pretty random. I’m not sure that was out of any principle. That’s almost certainly the case with Regan…I don’t know how you convict him. I also don’t buy into this meaning the tradition would be absolute. If it was wouldn’t that encourage the worst behavior?
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      he said "former president" and you are saying "president". not the same thing. the important difference is that the president has a lot of power while in office, pardon power, and many immunities. If a president is "corrupt", their power is great, their prosecution will be very difficult, but there is a reason to want to stop them. A former president has lost those powers and immunities, and in the same sense is also "no longer a threat", so in most cases it's not "necessary" to take legal steps to stop them from further crimes or transgressions. And in both cases, the due to the nature of politics, there is a desire to avoid feeding the political hunger for revenge thru malicious prosecution. Both sides have found it in their interest to let the wounded political warriors retire from the field, and focus the fight to those remaining.
      - duxup 4y ago
        Just a typo on my part.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > This is the primary reason the United States has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents, even ones that were provably guilty of crimes. There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. If it is so, then why did Gerald Ford grant a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president? [1] It seems to imply that at least someone thought Nixon might have committed some crime. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
      - mcny 4y ago
        I would very much like to see the pardon powers be limited by extending it. You should never be able to commute any one person’s sentence or pardon any one person. It should be all or nothing. Want to pardon someone who has been convicted for lying to a federal agent? You must pardon everyone currently serving a sentence for lying to a federal agent. No exceptions. Also the whole idea of pardoning someone who has not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted is just morally bankrupt. I was not born yet back then but I’m glad that Ford lost the POTUS election after such blatant corruption.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        If Nixon committed any crimes it was while he was president. Please understand the difference between a sitting president and a former president. Not for nothing, Nixon was never charged with a crime. A pardon is a forgiveness. What was Nixon pardoned for, exactly? Who knows!
    - cdogl 4y ago
      > There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
  - nsajko 4y ago
    Some mental gymnastics. Not to mention off-topic flamebait.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      No former President has ever been prosecuted for crimes committed in office either during or after leaving office, even in cases where they quite clearly did commit crimes. That is neither "mental gymnastics" nor "off-topic flamebait". It is simply a fact.

thom 4y ago

Yes. By refusing to come to an entirely reasonable settlement which allowed Caesar to return from Gaul peacefully and without being prosecuted. By working tirelessly to put a wedge between Pompey and Caesar.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
[flagged]
- duxup 4y ago
  > has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents Has this ever been tested often? The President generally has a lot of legal immunity and latitude. I don’t think that’s “tradition” where people choose not to prosecute the president, it’s just the law. Exceed that and every president is potentially at risk…
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > Has this ever been tested often? Nixon comes to mind immediately. He was formally pardoned just to make sure he wasn't prosecuted. Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached (though not removed from office), but were never prosecuted for the (alleged) crimes that led to impeachment. The Harding administration was notoriously corrupt, and he would almost certainly have been impeached had he not died in office. Reagan was accused of violating the law in the Iran-Contra affair, but was never prosecuted. There are undoubtedly other examples that aren't coming to mind immediately, but yeah, I'd say the principle has been fairly well tested. To turn it around, no former President has ever been prosecuted after leaving office, to my knowledge, and it wasn't because none of them committed crimes.
    - duxup 4y ago
      I’ve heard of those, but I haven’t heard of the rule.
      - krisoft 4y ago
        > I haven’t heard of the rule. Nobody said anything about a rule. The comment you initially responded mentioned a tradition. Those are two different things. A tradition is where people were doing (or not doing, as in this case) something in the past, long enough and consistently enough that it become recognised as a thing.
        duxup 4y ago
        I haven’t heard of this tradition.
        bdw5204 4y ago
        During the 2016 campaign, one of the norms Trump was criticized, for breaking by both left and right was the norm that you don't prosecute your political opponents.[0][1] Specifically this was in the context of his campaign promise to "lock her up" ("her" being his opponent Hillary Clinton), a promise he didn't bother trying to keep while he was in office. [0]: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/donald-trump-hillary-... [1]: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12232608/republican-convention-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up https://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12232608/republican-convention...
        duxup 4y ago
        I don’t know that I agree with the whole narrative. Nixon was pardoned, but the reason is that Nixon they were worried local and federal officials could act. I feel like that situation has it both ways. No tradition was protecting him so Ford acted. Trump not prosecuting Clinton seems like it could just as easily be because they didn’t think they could get a conviction and frankly Trumps opinion on legal matters seems pretty random. I’m not sure that was out of any principle. That’s almost certainly the case with Regan…I don’t know how you convict him. I also don’t buy into this meaning the tradition would be absolute. If it was wouldn’t that encourage the worst behavior?
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    he said "former president" and you are saying "president". not the same thing. the important difference is that the president has a lot of power while in office, pardon power, and many immunities. If a president is "corrupt", their power is great, their prosecution will be very difficult, but there is a reason to want to stop them. A former president has lost those powers and immunities, and in the same sense is also "no longer a threat", so in most cases it's not "necessary" to take legal steps to stop them from further crimes or transgressions. And in both cases, the due to the nature of politics, there is a desire to avoid feeding the political hunger for revenge thru malicious prosecution. Both sides have found it in their interest to let the wounded political warriors retire from the field, and focus the fight to those remaining.
    - duxup 4y ago
      Just a typo on my part.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > This is the primary reason the United States has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents, even ones that were provably guilty of crimes. There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. If it is so, then why did Gerald Ford grant a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president? [1] It seems to imply that at least someone thought Nixon might have committed some crime. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
    - mcny 4y ago
      I would very much like to see the pardon powers be limited by extending it. You should never be able to commute any one person’s sentence or pardon any one person. It should be all or nothing. Want to pardon someone who has been convicted for lying to a federal agent? You must pardon everyone currently serving a sentence for lying to a federal agent. No exceptions. Also the whole idea of pardoning someone who has not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted is just morally bankrupt. I was not born yet back then but I’m glad that Ford lost the POTUS election after such blatant corruption.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      If Nixon committed any crimes it was while he was president. Please understand the difference between a sitting president and a former president. Not for nothing, Nixon was never charged with a crime. A pardon is a forgiveness. What was Nixon pardoned for, exactly? Who knows!
  - cdogl 4y ago
    > There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
- nsajko 4y ago
  Some mental gymnastics. Not to mention off-topic flamebait.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    No former President has ever been prosecuted for crimes committed in office either during or after leaving office, even in cases where they quite clearly did commit crimes. That is neither "mental gymnastics" nor "off-topic flamebait". It is simply a fact.