Also, while I will reiterate that I have no idea what is and isn’t in the Mueller report, several sources are reporting that officials have refused to comment on whether there are any outstanding indictments already made but under seal.
Mueller will not save us. I don’t know whether Trump personally ordered quid-pro-quo arrangements with the Russians, whether it was more of the “will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest” variety, or he was just completely innocent of everything and his subordinates and children blundered into all kinds of shit without his awareness. (Option 3 seems unlikely to me, but I am trying to be without prejudice in this matter.)
No possible outcome changes or obviates the myriad reasons why Trump is unfit for office, most of which were painfully obvious from the moment he descended his Golden Escalator and certainly by November 2016. Nor does it change or obviate the emoluments clause violations, human rights abuses, fear-mongering, white supremacist winking, and borderline-criminal neglect (no, neglect is too soft a word – outright denial for no reason but spite) of climate change, which have occurred since inauguration. Also repeatedly calling a free press “the enemy of the people” which, in a Congress without partisan blinkers, might alone be cause for impeachment charges to be drawn up, as it represents a deep violation of his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
This is primarily on the American electorate, as it has always been. And it will be on us again in 2020.
Correct. Been saying as much since about two weeks after Mueller was appointed.
It’s equally simple for the GOP, because they stop right there. If Trump says it’s not true, he’s the new Darius/ Esther/ Whatever other biblical figure someone thinks of next week.
They take him on faith.
Yep… I’ve always felt this way, too. The only way we remove him is the ballot box. That’s probably as it should be.
I don’t disagree with the broader sense, but this bit is IMO obviously wrong. If a system doesn’t hold elected officials to compliance with the law, that system is broken. It should be possible to deal with lawbreaking by members of the executive the same way it is dealt with for members of the legislative and judicial branches: They get indicted, tried, convicted.
When you mentioned neglect, you forgot to include neglecting to have his transition team/administration do the work of staffing the many many executive branch positions that open upas a matter of course when a new President takes office. Which goes to show that the whole 2016 Trump campaign was never undertaken with a true desire to win, but rather as a brand-fluffing publicity stunt.
I am potentially for indicting Trump and everyone around him once they leave office. But removing a sitting President is a dangerous precedent. It shouldn’t be impossible – if there is strong evidence that he’s taking order from Russia or something similarly dangerous, that could not be ignored.
But I wouldn’t remove a sitting President simply because he appears to be a criminal. That leads us down a potentially dangerous path. I’d wait until after he’s removed the traditional way, at the ballot box, then hold him accountable for his crimes.
I disagree. Effectively immunizing a chief executive from prosecution gives her/him a license to abuse power. To say that a President can violate the law with legal impunity is to say that she/he is above the law, and effectively a tyrant. And prosecuting Presidents after they leave office is no less fraught with dangerous precedent than doing it when they are in office. Indeed, once Trump leaves office, the powers-that-be will almost certainly decide that it would be politically bad to bring criminal charges, just as they decided with Bush before him, and Reagan and Bush before that, and Nixon before that.
Edit: I mean, if Trump shoots a pedestrian in broad daylight on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of hundreds of witnesses and while being broadcast live, is he immune from prosecution?
Edit: To be clear: Bush ordered federal crimes that resulted in deaths. That’s felony murder. Yet he was not charged with it in office, and he was not charged with it after he left office. What must a President do to be held accountable to compliance with the law?
There is room for disagreement here :) Let me summarize my argument with one question: “What Would Newt Gingrich Do?”
We’d find out the next time we had a Democratic President. Except, they’d somehow take it even farther. They always do.
“Holding elected officials responsible for crimes they commit sets a dangerous precedent for the Republic” never ceases to amaze.
What he always does. But he’s not a Federal prosecutor, and he’s not likely to be; and even if he were, he’d have to take an indictment to the DOJ and a silly one wouldn’t be approved; and even if it were, it would then go to a judge, who would throw out a silly one; and if the judge didn’t, then the problem isn’t about Newt Gingrich anyway.
Edit: Politically, the Republicans will mount spurious political attacks on a Dem President no matter what that President does, and they will do it no matter how much Dems restrain themselves when the situation is reversed. They have already done so!
That’s not what I said, so it amazes me, too. I’m saying that removing a sitting President is a really big fucking deal. In most cases, you can hold a President, or anyone else accountable after they leave office the normal way.
I’d reserve impeachment/ criminal trials for cases where the President is a traitor or is engaged in really heinous crimes. If we find out he’s actually taking orders from Moscow, that he’s transferring funds from the Treasury to an account in the Caymans or he has a cheerleader chained up in the basement, he needs to be jailed. Maybe some of those things are true. There is certainly enough evidence to find out.
If it’s just corruption, self-dealing and general apathy toward his oath of office… I don’t think that rises to the level required, not when 40% of the country still supports him. We’re a Democracy before we’re anything else, and that needs to be honored.
What if she/he shoots a man on Pennsylvania Avenue? Robs a bank? Seizes people without warrants and holds them incommunicado? Orders them tortured and they die as a result? Still can’t be indicted?
And who decides if the crime is sufficiently important so as to warrant indictment?
Edit: And, when have we ever held a President accountable crimes in office after they left office?
Of course not. I said as much - it’s in the post right above yours (though I suppose you could read past the qualifiers if you were sufficiently eager to get to the “YOU’RE WRONG” reply). There is clearly a category of offense that is sufficiently heinous that we can’t abide it. I only suggest that the bar for that is higher than many people seem to think.
As to who decides, that’s a good question. In most cases, Congress. It’s their duty under the Constitution. I don’t know what to do if Congress refuses to do its job. We may get there, but we’re not there now.try.
No, I’m not talking about impeachment. I’m talking about criminal indictment. Congress cannot indict a President. Do you think that no one can indict a sitting President, as a matter of law?
I’m done with this. I’ve expressed my opinion – clearly, I think – and it’s no longer constructive :)
That is the current opinion of most legal experts and the DOJ.
If a president were to commit a crime, such as you suggest, the process by which they would be held to account would be, in this order:
- Congress impeaches the president
- that person is then indicted for those crimes, now that they are no longer president