4 ms·

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 sp

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?

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?