6 ms·
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I think that's overstated. First of all, it
by fsckboy 4y ago
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders.
I think that's overstated.
First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king".
Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, so there is at least a substantial idea that there is some "sovereign immunity" (quotes because that's not what sovereign immunity refers to)
Third, the founders were also well aware of the threat of political motives for prosecutions and wanted to diminish them with various balance of power checks and balances.
- dmix 4y agoThis also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour before/after presidency when the stakes are far lower.
- dukeofdoom 4y agoDoesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?
- norwalkbear 4y ago[flagged]
- gaganyaan 4y agoI almost wish HN had emoji reactions for comments. Upvote/downvote doesn't quite cut it when what this comment really needs is just an eyeroll emoji, possibly paired with "OK Boomer".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- phone8675309 4y agoYes - look at Comey's comments about butter emails that severely damaged Hilary Clinton's electoral chances.
- otterley 4y agoI think you mean "influence elections" - "picking who[m] you get to vote for" is quite a stretch.
- vkou 4y agoThe alternative is a country where political candidates are not bound by the rule of law. That juice is not worth the squeeze.
- brewdad 4y agoJust in case, I am hereby declaring my candidacy for the President of the United States for the upcoming election and all future elections in my lifetime.
- norwalkbear 4y agoSame here but the trick is also being popular.
- norwalkbear 4y ago[flagged]
- dmix 4y agoYes everything is different right now and all precedent and apprehensive reactions should be disregarded - aka what every single hysterical partisan in history has said. Don’t worry… we’ll be okay whatever happens. It’s never as bad as what the FUD pushers wished would happen (“feared” would be the wrong word here).
- norwalkbear 4y agoExcept we handed Trump 2024 on a silver platter
- daveguy 4y agoNah.
- kcplate 4y agoIn terms of tearing the country apart…I think you need to separate the nut jobs who idolize Trump from the right leaning folks who simply supported Trump mainly because he was on their side of the line and frankly not an elderly democrat who was a punchline before he became “The Alternative”. The nut jobs will create problems, the others will complain but not act. Overall the others far outweigh the nut jobs.
- norwalkbear 4y agoIt's not 2016 anymore. civil war and the great divorce is mainstream
- kcplate 4y agoI’m in the heart of Trump country and I guarantee the number trump flags flying and MAGA hat wearing ain’t what it used to be around me. I definitely don’t see the same levels of Trump adulation now. Frankly even some hardcore supporters I know are tired of his shtick and lean DeSantis.
- stuckinhell 4y agoTrump is a fundamentally different player than Bush or Nixon. They were establishment in times the establishment wasn't nearly as hated as it is now. This just plays to Trump's strength as the ultimate rebel. In terms of game theory, this is a very different game than Nixon or Bush. Trump annihilated the Bush Legacy, and is hated by both sides of the establishment.
- n0tahacker 4y agoWhich raises the question if one part of the establishment can protect you from the consequences of the law.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoTrump is part of "the establishment" himself. And that he can bullshit people like you into believing otherwise is part of his superpower as a lifelong pathologic liar.
- googlerx 4y agoAt least some of the legally problematic reimbursement payments to Cohen happened while he was president.
- zarzavat 4y agoJust to clarify. The King of the UK is above criminal law. The monarch of the UK cannot be arrested or charged with an offence, or be personally involved in criminal proceedings. That is similar to the immunity given to the sitting US President. What is different is that monarch is not really expected to obey the law either. For example, the Prime Minister was fined for illegally not wearing a seatbelt. If the king didn’t wear a seatbelt, it would not be a big deal - the royal family freely ignore traffic laws (and more serious laws) without consequences. Queen Elizabeth did agree to start paying taxes, but there was never any suggestion that she be compelled to pay taxes, merely that it would be the right thing to do.
- michaelbarton 4y agoAll good points. A small note though I believe the Queen started paying taxes in exchange for the state’s help rebuilding Windsor caste after the 92 fire. So seems more quid pro quo than something she felt was the right thing to do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Windsor_Castle_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Windsor_Castle_fire
- youngtaff 4y agoStill didn’t pay inheritance tax on her personal wealth though There are also all the laws the monarch / monarch’s lawyers interfered with e.g. police can’t enter Sandringham Estate without an invite, leaseholders on the Duchy of Cornwall are excluded from buying their freehold
- jackmott42 4y agoThe only reason there are any discussions about whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime is because the USA elected an evil administration that was willing to seriously suggest and push that idea. It is so tragic and disappointing.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoNope. There is a constitutional argument that a sitting president should not get indicted. But for one thing that's not settled law in any form, nor is it based in "sovereign" powers, nor is it even an immunity. The constitution and the oath of office requires him/her to faithfully execute the laws. That means he can't be immune, he can't be above the law... And yes, the US constitution is beyond messed up. It just barely works well enough not to risk switching it up. In Germany for example we have sort of an "updated" version, with lessons learned. But one thing I actually want changed is that members of parliament have actual real immunity. Not in the practical sense - immunity for individual members has historically always been waived by parliament at the slightest whiff of an investigation. But the example of Trump teaches us that it is a fallacy to trust in the decency of politicians and unwritten rules.