What precedent will prosecuting a former president set?

[atrib]

Talking heads make it sound like a deeply troubling question.

IMO it’s simple: any President who tries to stay in power by destroying democracy after losing a free and fair election, should be imprisoned for life - or executed.
Why is that a problem for any American?

People who plot and act to overthrow the constitutionally mandated presidential election process should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have no idea what laws may be used to indict and convict such people of their criminal behavior since I am not a lawyer, but I'm sure they exist. Whether you were the sitting President at the time you committed the crime(s) is largely irrelevant in my mind. In any case, Trump is not the President today, just a common citizen, and the justice department should go after him if they believe they have a case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only way to guarantee a conviction is to select jurors who are certain to convict. Which we can’t do if it’s a fair trial. And we cannot afford a trial that is not fair.

It’s sad but true that there really are people who could witness Trump assassinating someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and still acquit. I’m pretty sure I know some and probably am even related to a few.

No way this would be a jury trial. My goodness... that process itself... oh my god!

Defense Attorney: And do you hold any negative opinions of the defendant.
Potential Juror: No sir.
Defense Attorney: None at all?
Potential Juror: Nope.

Prosecuting Attorney: And do you hold the defendant in high esteem.
Potential Juror: No sir.
Prosecuting Attorney: Wha? How can you have no opinion of this guy?
Potential Juror: My mind is a blank slate.
Prosecuting Attorney: He tried to steal an election, bragged about sexually assaulting women.
Potential Juror: Never heard about that.
Defense Attorney: But you know he led a movement in America, to make America Great Again, right? That he fought the Chinese and won, brought jobs back to America.
Potential Juror: Nope. No idea what you're talking about.
Judge: Where the hell have you been living the last six years? Under a rock?
Potential Juror: Now there is no reason to get all offensive. I just really don't know who this guy is.
Defense Attorney: Your Honor, I think this prospective juror is both the most qualified and unqualified person to sit on this jury.
Prosecuting Attorney: I agree. I have no idea what to do with him.
Potential Juror: My wife says the same thing to our children all the time.
Judge/Attorneys: YOU HAVE CHILDREN?!

 

[ZiprHead]

This would be a Washington DC jury, not a Redneck Alabama jury. Steve Bannon was convicted quite quickly. I don't think it would be hard to keep die hard Trumpers off the jury. They seem to be pretty vocal about their support.

 

[Elixir]

Whether you were the sitting President at the time you committed the crime(s) is largely irrelevant in my mind.

^That. Absolutely.

I don't think it would be hard to keep die hard Trumpers off the jury. They seem to be pretty vocal about their support.

Most of them. The upsetting thought is that it only takes one bright enough to evade detection.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whether you were the sitting President at the time you committed the crime(s) is largely irrelevant in my mind.

^That. Absolutely.

I don't think it would be hard to keep die hard Trumpers off the jury. They seem to be pretty vocal about their support.

Most of them. The upsetting thought is that it only takes one bright enough to evade detection.

So, a unicorn.

Some of the jurors who were rejected in Bannon's trial were rejected because they had animosity toward Bannon, not against.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think all living presidents (except possibly Jimmy Carter) would object strenuously to the precedent of prosecuting former presidents.

Only Carter would actually be safe ... probably.

 

[Patooka]

I think all living presidents (except possibly Jimmy Carter) would object strenuously to the precedent of prosecuting former presidents.

Only Carter would actually be safe ... probably.

Of your fantasies - sure.

Of practicalities - well only a complete fucking moron would say every living President was as corrupt as Trump. Nice false equivalence, by the way.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Did you know that war crimes also count as crimes? They're much worse than simple corruption.

 

[Patooka]

Did you know that war crimes also count as crimes? They're much worse than simple corruption.

Yep. I also know of a word libertarians have never met - reality.

But you keep believeing US Presidents will ever be prosecuted for war crimes, sweetheart.

 

[bilby]

I think all living presidents (except possibly Jimmy Carter) would object strenuously to the precedent of prosecuting former presidents.

Only Carter would actually be safe ... probably.

Of your fantasies - sure.

Of practicalities - well only a complete fucking moron would say every any other living President was 1% as corrupt as Trump. Nice false equivalence, by the way.

FTFY.

And 1% is very fucking generous.

 

[Patooka]

I think all living presidents (except possibly Jimmy Carter) would object strenuously to the precedent of prosecuting former presidents.

Only Carter would actually be safe ... probably.

Of your fantasies - sure.

Of practicalities - well only a complete fucking moron would say every any other living President was 1% as corrupt as Trump. Nice false equivalence, by the way.

FTFY.

And 1% is very fucking generous.

Fuck you. Both sides yada yada yada. Something something Hillary's emails etc.

Thought I'd get in before JH responded.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Did you know that war crimes also count as crimes? They're much worse than simple corruption.

Yep. I also know of a word libertarians conservoprogressives have never met - reality.

But you keep believeing US Presidents will ever be prosecuted for war crimes, sweetheart.

You actually believe that I think there will be ANY prosecutions of former presidents?

Especially after my point was that all living presidents (except possibly Carter) would have a personal reason to oppose such a thing?

You actually believe that?

Wow.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Whether you were the sitting President at the time you committed the crime(s) is largely irrelevant in my mind.

^That. Absolutely.

I don't think it would be hard to keep die hard Trumpers off the jury. They seem to be pretty vocal about their support.

Most of them. The upsetting thought is that it only takes one bright enough to evade detection.

Am I the only one who understands that Trumpers aren't at all interested in truth or executive privilege or acting ethically. They're only protecting themselves and their interests. Protecting Orange is protecting themselves from the same treatment when they break the law. There's a lot of good-old-boys club operating in american politics.

 

[Elixir]

Am I the only one…

No. Rarer are those who think trumpers have some ideology, a center, a North Star.
Even the trumpsters themselves know they are just owning the libs or getting in on the grab. There are only the very stupid ones remaining with the belief that Trump is a great genius who has all the best people and all the best words.

 

[Rhea]

If we never prosecute a former president, what on earth would keep them from being utterly, and effectively! craven? We have to make sure future presidents know that you cannot imprison and kill everyone who opposes you. That can only be shown by prosecuting when the crimes are supported by evidence.

 

[Elixir]

f we never prosecute a former president, what on earth would keep them from being utterly, and effectively! craven?

The only president for whom that is - or ever has been - a question, is the only one that is utterly and effectively craven.
But now the example is set and the model has been adopted by one of our two parties, so there’s no choice but follow through with consequences or die as a nation.

 

[Rhea]

My comment was implying that he was less effective than, say, Pol Pot types. Because he’s craven but not thoroughly effect because he’s fundamentally stupid. So I worry even more about sommeone like Cruz or DeSantis. Or a Dick Cheney type.

 

[Elixir]

I would not be surprised if Biden pardoned Trump, to be honest.

I took that as a flippant comment when you posted it, but the more I think about it … there are a number of scenarios where that would be a genius move.
Of course Cheato needs to be formally charged first.
If a pardon was offered prior to trial, it would put Cheato in an odd situation. Would he turn it down? Owe his freedom (and millions in lawyer fees) to Sleepy Joe?
Or maybe wait until the trial is done and the jury is going for deliberation?

It would defuse the violent right-or at least force them to modify the object list of their anger a little bit.
Also cripples Cheato for any 2024 prospect, assuming it can go to trial by early 2024, which may be a stretch.

 

[Toni]

I would not be surprised if Biden pardoned Trump, to be honest.

I took that as a flippant comment when you posted it, but the more I think about it … there are a number of scenarios where that would be a genius move.
Of course Cheato needs to be formally charged first.
If a pardon was offered prior to trial, it would put Cheato in an odd situation. Would he turn it down? Owe his freedom (and millions in lawyer fees) to Sleepy Joe?
Or maybe wait until the trial is done and the jury is going for deliberation?

It would defuse the violent right-or at least force them to modify the object list of their anger a little bit.
Also cripples Cheato for any 2024 prospect, assuming it can go to trial by early 2024, which may be a stretch.

It really wasn’t flippant. Some condemn Biden for maintaining friendships or even working relationships with people who are quite opposite him politically. But that is a huge strength. We cannot afford to only associate or work with people who agree with us on all things. Or much of anything, to be frank. We can’t accomplish mush except deadlock unless we are willing to find some middle ground. Of course some issues will bear no middle ground some things are absolutely wrong or absolutely right, no compromise. Sometimes the comprehension mode comes in the implementation.

But yes, I think that Biden and his team can play 3-D chess when necessary. And there is nothing wrong with a multi-prong approach.

 

[RVonse]

Especially after my point was that all living presidents (except possibly Carter) would have a personal reason to oppose such a thing?

This. And this answers the OP as well.

When you think about it, the "rule of law" is pretty useless in modern times when everyone is corrupt. And I mean everyone from Nancy Peloci to Mitch McConnel to Joe Biden. They all have integrity problems....all of them. No one in our present day federal government has the credibility to carry out any sort of justice for a past POTUS. For such people doing this only looks entirely political, even if their actual motives might actually be true.

Say what you will about Carter being in trouble for his incompetance. Even his enemies would not ever call him corrupt. There is a lot to be said about honorable people vs what we have now.