3 ms·

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.

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.

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.