6 ms·

If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts then the next time the other party takes over they will just immediately find various crimes their pre

If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts then the next time the other party takes over they will just immediately find various crimes their predecessor “committed” (there are probably 10s of 1000s of them).

afavour 2y ago
But isn't that the status quo? Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? It's not like the Republicans were lacking a desire for retribution against him. "there are probably 10s of 1000s of them" also feels a little lacking to me. Do we have concrete examples?
- chasd00 2y ago
  i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. I remember in the 2016 debates when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary her eyes got real big about how ignorant Trump was to the way things are and have been. That's one of the downsides to a political outsider a lot of formally unasked questions start needing answers.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. How many former presidents or rivals tried to prevent the transfer of power? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup There's a specific reason why Trump is being investigated. We're not talking about jay-walking here. And there's also intent with action, using yet another case: Biden had classified documents in his home residence, but he handed them back to the government with minimal fuss. Trump had classified documents and moved them around even after being subpoenaed to return them: * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-documents https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump... * https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3 https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictme...
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    > when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary As best I can tell, most who voted for him didn't actually believe he would do that - and he didn't. The whole "because you'd be in jail" was Trump being Trump, not a campaign promise. When Trump says something like that, knowing whether he's in earnest or being bombastic is like knowing what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are figurative - it's very much open to individual interpretation.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > and he didn't. Not for lack of trying. The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-tru... We now live in a world where in a future Trump administration: - Trump knows even if he's impeached he will not be removed because his party will protect him, since he was impeached and not removed for far more serious matters. - SCOTUS just told Trump that any conversations he has with his DOJ are under the umbrella of core authority and cannot be reviewed. - The current purity tests being employed at the RNC by his kin show a future Trump administration will not hire someone like Don McGahn who will tell him "no" about anything. Why are you so sure a future President Trump would not try again and be successful?
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  I would imagine that Obama is quite happy with his presidential immunity for ordering the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen via drone strike[1]. [1] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-killing-a-reckoning-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-kill...
  - afavour 2y ago
    Yes I'm quite sure Obama is happy with it. Should the rest of us be? Would a court case over the legality of such an action not be a positive thing?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    I mean, is that the out for Biden? A drone strike on Mar-a-Lago as an "official act" for which he enjoys absolute immunity?
    - newfriend 2y ago
      If he wants a civil war, sure.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Obviously, but we're to believe it'd be entirely legal to do so?
        Ancapistani 2y ago
        No, because of the use of the military within the borders of the country is separately and explicitly illegal under US law.
        gaganyaan 2y ago
        But now that doesn't matter. The president is immune as long as there's the defense of it being an official act
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? What illegal acts did Obama do, while POTUS, yet outside of his 'official duties', what would warrant prosecution? Remember the context for this decision: Trump's participation in the events of January 6: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... You know, the insurrection in which people have been found guilty of seditious action: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Seditious_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_Ja... Were his January 6 actions part of his official duties?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - shadowtree 2y ago
    He droned and killed a US citizen without due process. Literal murder.
    - oblio 2y ago
      Based on other comments, that was unintentional. So manslaughter, at worst.
      - WillPostForFood 2y ago
        Obama killed 4 Americans in drone attacks. 3 unintentionally, but Anwar Awlaki was targeted.
        tonynator 2y ago
        [flagged]
        galactus 2y ago
        As american as Barak Obama, right?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Obama didn't prosecute Bush, so the Republicans didn't try to prosecute Obama. Professional courtesy.
kibwen 2y ago
If presidents break the law, they should be prosecuted. I don't care who you are or what party you're with.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  First, I agree . Second, the first step in that is the impeachment process.
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    Impeachment is not required in order to allow prosecuting a president, and even Chief Justice’s majority opinion which granted presidents significant immunity explicitly rejected the idea that impeachment is such a prerequisite. Impeachment is only a prerequisite to the Senate possibly convicting in the political rather than criminal trial and removing the person from office, and then possibly disqualifying them from future federal office. It has no bearing on whatever criminal procedures are not blocked by immunity.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    It is super-duper clear that’s not intended by the authors of the constitution, judging from their writings and the records of the debate over the constitution, and from the very limited relevant text in the constitution itself. This is laid out clearly in the dissent, complete with references for further reading. Meanwhile the majority’s argument is “lack of immunity (which has, so far, not existed!!!) would make the president too timid, so we’re adding immunity”.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      Yup, all the originalists and textualists on the court running and hiding when the outcome benefits their person. Instead it's just "Well, we like trump so let's benefit him". What a horrible corrupt court. I'm 1000% sure that if trump wins and starts prosecuting his political rivals the court will give it the nod as being AOK.
jshier 2y ago
Corrupt admins will already do that, so giving blanket immunity doesn't actually help anyone. All they need to then corruptly prosecute anyone is a court to agree that some act was "unofficial".
- pessimizer 2y ago
  It has never happened before now. It isn't because past presidents have never been criminals, it was convention. It's a way for your country not to turn into Haiti or Zimbabwe.
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    Nixon was very probably criminal, but Ford’s pardon prevented a prosecution without having to settle the question of whether Nixon would have been immune in the absence of a pardon.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
People forget that Obama actually did some questionable things too. He greenlit drone strikes that killed at least 2 Americans, not to mention civilian casualties. And he was the president that the 'holding camps' at the border (not sure what to call them) were started. No one (that I know of) seriously thought he should go to prison for those acts, but honestly the argument seems pretty easy to be made without some sort of immunity.
vlovich123 2y ago
They could be prosecuted, but prosecutors generally don’t like to bring losing cases. And the actions being official acts was already a defense. The distinction was that you could still get prosecuted, but you just had to show a non corrupt intent in doing the action and get the case easily dismissed. Now you don’t even need to show that you had non corrupt intent - just claim official acts and no lawsuit is possible in the first place.
pacifika 2y ago
I guess you need some new parties
digging 2y ago
Not if there was a grace period before prosecution could be brought, or literally any other mechanism that exists between the binary "impossible to prosecute" and "guaranteed to prosecute"
inpdx 2y ago
"If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts" This has always been presumed to be the case yet it has never resulted in what you say. It's a nonsense theoretical as cover for what is otherwise utterly indefensible as making the president king.
HaZeust 2y ago
This wasn't even a problem before the last 4 years, and the only times it were - was when the suspecting president agreed they broke the law and stepped down, or got impeached. We have monarchy after monarchy to show that sovereign immunity builds toxic ontological relationships between participants of a political system, and often invites tyranny. Your suspicions, for 238 years straight, have been amiss.
- electrondood 2y ago
  This hasn't been a problem for 250 years, and it's still not a problem anyone has. This ruling serves one specific purpose: to protect one single person from the consequences of their crimes.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    We are in agreement.

afavour 2y ago

But isn't that the status quo? Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? It's not like the Republicans were lacking a desire for retribution against him. "there are probably 10s of 1000s of them" also feels a little lacking to me. Do we have concrete examples?

chasd00 2y ago
i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. I remember in the 2016 debates when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary her eyes got real big about how ignorant Trump was to the way things are and have been. That's one of the downsides to a political outsider a lot of formally unasked questions start needing answers.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. How many former presidents or rivals tried to prevent the transfer of power? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup There's a specific reason why Trump is being investigated. We're not talking about jay-walking here. And there's also intent with action, using yet another case: Biden had classified documents in his home residence, but he handed them back to the government with minimal fuss. Trump had classified documents and moved them around even after being subpoenaed to return them: * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-documents https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump... * https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3 https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictme...
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  > when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary As best I can tell, most who voted for him didn't actually believe he would do that - and he didn't. The whole "because you'd be in jail" was Trump being Trump, not a campaign promise. When Trump says something like that, knowing whether he's in earnest or being bombastic is like knowing what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are figurative - it's very much open to individual interpretation.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > and he didn't. Not for lack of trying. The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-tru... We now live in a world where in a future Trump administration: - Trump knows even if he's impeached he will not be removed because his party will protect him, since he was impeached and not removed for far more serious matters. - SCOTUS just told Trump that any conversations he has with his DOJ are under the umbrella of core authority and cannot be reviewed. - The current purity tests being employed at the RNC by his kin show a future Trump administration will not hire someone like Don McGahn who will tell him "no" about anything. Why are you so sure a future President Trump would not try again and be successful?
sickofparadox 2y ago
I would imagine that Obama is quite happy with his presidential immunity for ordering the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen via drone strike[1]. [1] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-killing-a-reckoning-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-kill...
- afavour 2y ago
  Yes I'm quite sure Obama is happy with it. Should the rest of us be? Would a court case over the legality of such an action not be a positive thing?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  I mean, is that the out for Biden? A drone strike on Mar-a-Lago as an "official act" for which he enjoys absolute immunity?
  - newfriend 2y ago
    If he wants a civil war, sure.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Obviously, but we're to believe it'd be entirely legal to do so?
      - Ancapistani 2y ago
        No, because of the use of the military within the borders of the country is separately and explicitly illegal under US law.
        gaganyaan 2y ago
        But now that doesn't matter. The president is immune as long as there's the defense of it being an official act
throw0101b 2y ago
> Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? What illegal acts did Obama do, while POTUS, yet outside of his 'official duties', what would warrant prosecution? Remember the context for this decision: Trump's participation in the events of January 6: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... You know, the insurrection in which people have been found guilty of seditious action: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Seditious_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_Ja... Were his January 6 actions part of his official duties?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- shadowtree 2y ago
  He droned and killed a US citizen without due process. Literal murder.
  - oblio 2y ago
    Based on other comments, that was unintentional. So manslaughter, at worst.
    - WillPostForFood 2y ago
      Obama killed 4 Americans in drone attacks. 3 unintentionally, but Anwar Awlaki was targeted.
      - tonynator 2y ago
        [flagged]
        galactus 2y ago
        As american as Barak Obama, right?
lupusreal 2y ago
Obama didn't prosecute Bush, so the Republicans didn't try to prosecute Obama. Professional courtesy.

kibwen 2y ago

If presidents break the law, they should be prosecuted. I don't care who you are or what party you're with.

readthenotes1 2y ago
First, I agree . Second, the first step in that is the impeachment process.
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  Impeachment is not required in order to allow prosecuting a president, and even Chief Justice’s majority opinion which granted presidents significant immunity explicitly rejected the idea that impeachment is such a prerequisite. Impeachment is only a prerequisite to the Senate possibly convicting in the political rather than criminal trial and removing the person from office, and then possibly disqualifying them from future federal office. It has no bearing on whatever criminal procedures are not blocked by immunity.
- vundercind 2y ago
  It is super-duper clear that’s not intended by the authors of the constitution, judging from their writings and the records of the debate over the constitution, and from the very limited relevant text in the constitution itself. This is laid out clearly in the dissent, complete with references for further reading. Meanwhile the majority’s argument is “lack of immunity (which has, so far, not existed!!!) would make the president too timid, so we’re adding immunity”.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Yup, all the originalists and textualists on the court running and hiding when the outcome benefits their person. Instead it's just "Well, we like trump so let's benefit him". What a horrible corrupt court. I'm 1000% sure that if trump wins and starts prosecuting his political rivals the court will give it the nod as being AOK.

jshier 2y ago

Corrupt admins will already do that, so giving blanket immunity doesn't actually help anyone. All they need to then corruptly prosecute anyone is a court to agree that some act was "unofficial".

pessimizer 2y ago
It has never happened before now. It isn't because past presidents have never been criminals, it was convention. It's a way for your country not to turn into Haiti or Zimbabwe.
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  Nixon was very probably criminal, but Ford’s pardon prevented a prosecution without having to settle the question of whether Nixon would have been immune in the absence of a pardon.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

People forget that Obama actually did some questionable things too. He greenlit drone strikes that killed at least 2 Americans, not to mention civilian casualties. And he was the president that the 'holding camps' at the border (not sure what to call them) were started. No one (that I know of) seriously thought he should go to prison for those acts, but honestly the argument seems pretty easy to be made without some sort of immunity.

vlovich123 2y ago

They could be prosecuted, but prosecutors generally don’t like to bring losing cases. And the actions being official acts was already a defense. The distinction was that you could still get prosecuted, but you just had to show a non corrupt intent in doing the action and get the case easily dismissed. Now you don’t even need to show that you had non corrupt intent - just claim official acts and no lawsuit is possible in the first place.

pacifika 2y ago

I guess you need some new parties

digging 2y ago

Not if there was a grace period before prosecution could be brought, or literally any other mechanism that exists between the binary "impossible to prosecute" and "guaranteed to prosecute"

inpdx 2y ago

"If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts" This has always been presumed to be the case yet it has never resulted in what you say. It's a nonsense theoretical as cover for what is otherwise utterly indefensible as making the president king.

HaZeust 2y ago

This wasn't even a problem before the last 4 years, and the only times it were - was when the suspecting president agreed they broke the law and stepped down, or got impeached. We have monarchy after monarchy to show that sovereign immunity builds toxic ontological relationships between participants of a political system, and often invites tyranny. Your suspicions, for 238 years straight, have been amiss.

electrondood 2y ago
This hasn't been a problem for 250 years, and it's still not a problem anyone has. This ruling serves one specific purpose: to protect one single person from the consequences of their crimes.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  We are in agreement.