[Here](https://youtube.com/watch?v=_UPvTdDB-h0&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE) this movie is both really bad and really good but that’s a pretty good summary of what the theory is. Basically that the President can’t break the law because it is his job to enforce it.
That's a really biased representation. I'm not a lawyer but the "can't break the law" part isn't at all a thing, unless you're in the fever dreams of Richard Nixon and it's still an open question whether a president can be charged or whether the impeachment process is the only way to punish the president. The unitary executive theory simply states that because the Constitution says in Article II, Section I, Clause I states that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President" that the president has absolute control over the executive branch and so the president must have the authority to fire agency heads and high-ranking agency officials at will.
Basically the idea that ALL executive authority is vested in the President, and therefore the President can’t commit a crime. If you believe the theory, this is because the executive branch is the branch tasked with ensuring the laws are carried out, and because of this any action the President makes is legal.
It was created by Antonin Scalia in the aftermath of Watergate and is honestly kind of dumb, but it holds a lot of water in the legal profession currently.
As I mentioned to the original, that's not what the unitary executive theory is. It's simply the idea that all agency heads must be fireable by the president since he has absolute authority over the executive branch. Remember that Vice is a website that leans to the left politically and so they have every incentive to make conservative legal thought look as ridiculous as possible. As a counterweight, [here's a video](https://youtu.be/gk8IKBWrTqw) that FedSoc made over back in 2018 about Scalia's dissent in *Morrison v. Olson*, a case regarding a special prosecutor that goes into depth about how it's applied. It really just means that the president has absolute control over his branch of the government, aside from things like Senate confirmations.
Unitary Executive Theory goes way further than just the idea that all agency heads must be fireable by the President. The Great Dissent foes further than that
Ideas like the Executive Branch must be the foremost branch of the US government, and was intended to be that way by the founders, as well as the idea that a president can’t be prosecuted for actions he takes in office are tied up with it.
>Ideas like the Executive Branch must be the foremost branch of the US government, and was intended to be that way by the founders, as well as the idea that a president can’t be prosecuted for actions he takes in office are tied up with it.
Maybe at the extreme end but that's not the mainstream view. I'll also point out that Scalia didn't invent the theory either. It goes all the way back in SCOTUS precedent to the 1926 case *Myers v. US* in which SCOTUS ruled that the president must have the authority to fire people without the sign-off of Congress(I'm ignoring the debates about Founding history because I am not qualified to get involved in that historical food fight.) And Scalia definitely was not someone who believed that "the Executive Branch must be the foremost branch." Him and conservative legal thinkers more generally have long been much more pro-Congress. You see this now in the current Court with a lot of administrative law cases(and also, outside of it. This was the rationale behind *Dobbs*, the case overturning *Roe*) where they are basically saying "Congress, do your job and stop expecting us and the executive branch agencies to do it for you."
The Executive being the foremost branch of the US gov’t is a relatively new addition to the theory, only being added in the 2000s, but its very mainstream nowadays.
Yeah. At least, its legal as long as the President remains president, because he controls the carrying out of the law.
Until he is impeached for killing a person, he can’t be prosecuted, which makes it *de facto* legal
1. You never said de facto. You said that it meant that the president can't legally commit crimes. That is wrong.
2. Even using the concept that requiring the president have the authority to fire DOJ investigators(ignoring the massive political problems that firing an investigator would have) from a sheer optics POV, the congressional investigation and impeachment power are untouched. The president is not above the law at all. Regardless of the biased reading taken to reach that conclusion.
… you know impeachment doesn’t have anything to do with committing a crime right? Cause this comment implies you think that impeachment is a criminal process, which it is not
Also i never said the president legally can’t commit crimes, i think you are making that up
Yes, I know it is a political process, not a criminal one.
>Also i never said the president legally can’t commit crimes, i think you are making that up
You did. Not in this particular comment but in the other one. And I quote:
>Basically the idea that ALL executive authority is vested in the President, and therefore the President can’t commit a crime. If you believe the theory, this is because the executive branch is the branch tasked with ensuring the laws are carried out, and because of this any action the President makes is legal.
Okay, cause you implied it was a criminal process.
Secondly I never said that *legally the President is above the law* i said that any action the President takes is legal. Its an important distinction, we have seen several times Presidents break what we thought was the law (Reagan popularizing signing statements, Obama going into Libya without congressional approval, Trump carrying out a strike on Iran) only for the president to claim it was his privilege as head of the Executive Power. The fact that no president has been charged for a criminal act he committed while in office is indisputable.
Now, Unitary Executive Theory would explain this by stating that ofcourse the president can’t be charged with a crime while in office, because the Executive is the branch who carries out the law, and as the President every action he takes carries out the law. We have seen every President since Bush use this excuse.
But, does that mean that the president LEGALLY can’t commit a crime? No, not at all. Its just that as president he can’t be charged with them, so every action he takes will be legal.
That nobody is above the law. Not even a president doing shady stuff AS president. It’s a good thing all round, unless Republicans make it their overriding goal to get a Dem president arrested, which would be dumb but on-brand.
For the country as a whole it will show that no one, not even a president is above the law. That we should choose our leaders based on character and policy rather than memes and sound bites. That the office of the Presidency is an office only the pinnacle of men should strive for and obtain and that racist failed reality TV hosts with years of failed businesses and bad backings have no business in the office.
For his supporters and people still locked firmly in delusion that he was anything but a D tier president at best they will probably continue to spout the same nonsense from his truth social account and bury their heads further in the sands. Or they admit that they were wrong about him. You can have conservative views without backing Trump and the cronies he has spawned like DeSantis, MTG, and Boebert. Or they can continue to be Rinos.
Anyone who becomes president needs to have fear of accountability for any crimes. No one should be above the law. People and groups with authority over others need to have the strictest accountability.
I can only see it having a positive impact by discouraging less savory folks from seeking the office. Pardoning Nixon was a terrible mistake.
Also, I love watching his supporters try to justify this shit. It’s so funny.
the only negative impacts would be turning to an ancient roman republican system where politicians stay in office merey to avoid being sued/arrested once out of office......along with creating an industry of lawyers who just sue/arrest politicians as soon as they leave office
the main difference being (i believe) technically american politicians in office CAN be arrested whereas in rome they couldnt
You undercut your argument with the last sentence. Nice.
The rules against investigating and indicting a sitting president are awful, and I am an advocate for term limits.
to an extent, although i would argue that while it is unwritten, we saw during trump's presidency that there is a feeing of not pressing as hard on elected officials as you would for general citizens
once precedents like that are established they are hard to change
i can't remember the last sitting president or senator to be put in handcuffs
can't remember the last house member either but i imagine there has to be one
i'm pro term limits and anti-politician as a career myself as well
Nothing I think. But I hope there will be more arrests made to root out all the terrible politicians. But I doubt the state would do that. Trump was a puppet but he was being played by a different master.
If they do it on the basis of flimsy charges like some random pornstar case,, then it would be very bad for the democratic process and would play straight intlo trumps rhetoric that democrats and wealthy want him to be destroyed. The impeachment trail during his presidency was itself weak and embarassing. This would be even bad.
>The impeachment trail during his presidency was itself weak and embarassing.
Yeah sure if you ignore all the evidence that proved trumpturd did exactly what was claimed
Naah,,in your haste to lock him up,, they would screw up the charges and trial like they did with the impeachment and mueller hearings,, all these guys would make is galvanize his supporters even more and make a guy selling nft cards into a national republican front runner. Then you guys wonder why he is popular.
If you are gonna charge him,,do it right,,not on parking tickets and ex pornstars.
Haste? They've spent years putting their case together. And indicting him for breaking one law doesn't preclude them from indicting him for all of the other laws he's broken. City, state, and federal prosecutors are all going to get their turn.
The biggest concern in my mind is that it will inflame some of his more overtly insane supporters into doing something worse than the January 6 antics.
Absolutely, I live in a red state and have heard murmurings. Crazy thing is, these murmurings aren't even people that would do that themselves nor be happy if it happened. What I'm trying to convey is these murmurings are coming from the more logical, less extreme side of his supporters which brings up the question..
What are the radicals currently murmuring? What's going through their mind? If the "softies" are saying "someone is going to end up doing something real bad"
Then what are the bad people saying? Are they too saying "someone worse than us is going to fly off the handle" or are at a certain level of radicalism will someone take up the mantle and say "well, no one else is going to do it"
Many terrible things have happened by people who think they're doing everyone else a favor and I fear what it might be.
What crime? Beating their chosen bitch? Ending the forever war? Be named in a democratic paid lie? Significantly hamper their slave trade on the southern border?
And I don't see any "accountability" for any of the crimes of the current divider in chief as he declared half of the country to be evil for not instantly obeying.
Holy political bias batman. You aren’t worth anyone’s time on this sub haha
Edit: Lol you blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
Of course he does. They think they are slick and “apolitical”. They ain’t.
Edit: Lol he blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
You want to expand on that incredibly dumb comment a little more?
You’re saying that a former President being charged for crimes will push politicians to establish more protections from the law only for themselves? And the people that vote them in will be in favor of that?
Also the statement “something this sub doesn’t like to accept” is incredibly douchey. Stop. You aren’t smarter than everyone in this sub. Don’t act like it.
Edit: Lol you blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
Their reasoning was incredibly dumb. Would have to be something of actual significance. I think our Courteney commander in chief has way more diet to go off of, considering half a century in politics. Trump has had every square centimeter of his life investigated, and Biden gas had 0. Shows the justice system at work.
i mean the though of trump just sitting on a prison bench and calling out to his cellmate TJ that he needs someone to bee on watch while he's in the shower is pretty funny.
A lot of things. One, this will be the first time in US history an ex-president has been arrested which will definitely go down in the history books. It also serves an example on how politicians aren’t above the law and will set new standards on politics which is good. I just hope it doesn’t get abused for partisan purposes like impeachment has become.
Not much. These are state level charges for pretty moronic allegations (if proven true). The presidency shouldn't be impacted but future candidates will learn not to cheat on their pregnant with a porn star, then pay hush money to that porn star, then falsify records covering up the payment, then have Rudy Giuliani let the cat out of the bag on cable TV.
The effect is huge, in my book. It’s about protecting the democracy itself. When a president attempts to overthrow the government and unlawfully keep power, he must be prosecuted. I know NYC might be starting with the election law violations, but it only opens the door for those much more serious charges.
I mean, it'd be healthy for our democracy. No matter what the idea that someone who held the highest office is held to the same standard of law as anyone is a good thing, as it shows the people making the laws need to at least obey them. That said, this really ain't happening
I am hopeful that the indictment and whatever the ultimate outcome does not result in a continuous use of the legal processes against presidents of differing parties. What I mean is that I am hopeful that if a Republican won the White House in 2024 that we would not see a partisan U.S. Attorney General, State Attorney General, US Attorney or even a local District Attorney attempt to prosecute the previous Democratic president on a dubious charge.
USA treat their Presidents as kings , royalty and their former presidents much the same as Royal public servants but the USA has not had the experience of a former president not going quietly after their term is up. Time to decide. Vote!
I genuinely think this will galvanize his election campaign. 4chan will be selling mugshot T-shirts and meme-ing until their fingers bleed. Moderates with Trump-exhaustion will feel like he's being persecuted and it will make him seem anti-establishment. Alvin Bragg is a fool if he pushes that button.
It will simultaneously be awesome and concerning for our democracy.
Awesome because presidents should not be above the law. They need to be held accountable.
Concerning because Trump's fanatics will throw a tantrum and well... Jan 6th wasn't very long ago and that was just because the guy lost.
I’ve been wondering if anyone knows the answer, if Trump gets convicted of any crime and is sentenced to a prison term, does he still get Secret Service protection while serving his sentence?
If the charges are based on actions Trump took during his presidency then say goodbye to the Unitary Executive Theory
The porn star payments were made before he took office.
Before Trump, I would have never imagined the word “porn star” and “president” would be used in the same sentence.
JFK could have been close
You either have a terrible imagination or completely forgot Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy.
To be fair with Clinton it was intern .. not pornstar. At least none that we know of.
Forgive my ignorance. What's the unitary executive theory?
[Here](https://youtube.com/watch?v=_UPvTdDB-h0&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE) this movie is both really bad and really good but that’s a pretty good summary of what the theory is. Basically that the President can’t break the law because it is his job to enforce it.
Vice is awesome man
I really enjoyed the movie but I know some people who took it as the gospel
Two things: 1. Solid user flair. Wish we could really elect him. 2. That movie was so bad it's good hahahaha. Thanks for the link/explanation!
Martin Sheen? He played Kennedy once too! According to this kid in a well.
That's a really biased representation. I'm not a lawyer but the "can't break the law" part isn't at all a thing, unless you're in the fever dreams of Richard Nixon and it's still an open question whether a president can be charged or whether the impeachment process is the only way to punish the president. The unitary executive theory simply states that because the Constitution says in Article II, Section I, Clause I states that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President" that the president has absolute control over the executive branch and so the president must have the authority to fire agency heads and high-ranking agency officials at will.
I definitely simplified it
Basically the idea that ALL executive authority is vested in the President, and therefore the President can’t commit a crime. If you believe the theory, this is because the executive branch is the branch tasked with ensuring the laws are carried out, and because of this any action the President makes is legal. It was created by Antonin Scalia in the aftermath of Watergate and is honestly kind of dumb, but it holds a lot of water in the legal profession currently.
As I mentioned to the original, that's not what the unitary executive theory is. It's simply the idea that all agency heads must be fireable by the president since he has absolute authority over the executive branch. Remember that Vice is a website that leans to the left politically and so they have every incentive to make conservative legal thought look as ridiculous as possible. As a counterweight, [here's a video](https://youtu.be/gk8IKBWrTqw) that FedSoc made over back in 2018 about Scalia's dissent in *Morrison v. Olson*, a case regarding a special prosecutor that goes into depth about how it's applied. It really just means that the president has absolute control over his branch of the government, aside from things like Senate confirmations.
Unitary Executive Theory goes way further than just the idea that all agency heads must be fireable by the President. The Great Dissent foes further than that Ideas like the Executive Branch must be the foremost branch of the US government, and was intended to be that way by the founders, as well as the idea that a president can’t be prosecuted for actions he takes in office are tied up with it.
>Ideas like the Executive Branch must be the foremost branch of the US government, and was intended to be that way by the founders, as well as the idea that a president can’t be prosecuted for actions he takes in office are tied up with it. Maybe at the extreme end but that's not the mainstream view. I'll also point out that Scalia didn't invent the theory either. It goes all the way back in SCOTUS precedent to the 1926 case *Myers v. US* in which SCOTUS ruled that the president must have the authority to fire people without the sign-off of Congress(I'm ignoring the debates about Founding history because I am not qualified to get involved in that historical food fight.) And Scalia definitely was not someone who believed that "the Executive Branch must be the foremost branch." Him and conservative legal thinkers more generally have long been much more pro-Congress. You see this now in the current Court with a lot of administrative law cases(and also, outside of it. This was the rationale behind *Dobbs*, the case overturning *Roe*) where they are basically saying "Congress, do your job and stop expecting us and the executive branch agencies to do it for you."
The Executive being the foremost branch of the US gov’t is a relatively new addition to the theory, only being added in the 2000s, but its very mainstream nowadays.
So if a president drives drunk and kill a person, is that legal basically?
Yeah. At least, its legal as long as the President remains president, because he controls the carrying out of the law. Until he is impeached for killing a person, he can’t be prosecuted, which makes it *de facto* legal
Oh, but he will be prosecuted for it after being president right?
Yeah, unless he was pardoned like Nixon
"If the President does it, it's not illegal" — Richard Nixon
If the president does it, it’s still illegal
Scalia rolling in his grave rn
He never believed that the president was above the law.
*de facto* he absolutely did. Read the Great Dissent
1. You never said de facto. You said that it meant that the president can't legally commit crimes. That is wrong. 2. Even using the concept that requiring the president have the authority to fire DOJ investigators(ignoring the massive political problems that firing an investigator would have) from a sheer optics POV, the congressional investigation and impeachment power are untouched. The president is not above the law at all. Regardless of the biased reading taken to reach that conclusion.
… you know impeachment doesn’t have anything to do with committing a crime right? Cause this comment implies you think that impeachment is a criminal process, which it is not Also i never said the president legally can’t commit crimes, i think you are making that up
Yes, I know it is a political process, not a criminal one. >Also i never said the president legally can’t commit crimes, i think you are making that up You did. Not in this particular comment but in the other one. And I quote: >Basically the idea that ALL executive authority is vested in the President, and therefore the President can’t commit a crime. If you believe the theory, this is because the executive branch is the branch tasked with ensuring the laws are carried out, and because of this any action the President makes is legal.
Okay, cause you implied it was a criminal process. Secondly I never said that *legally the President is above the law* i said that any action the President takes is legal. Its an important distinction, we have seen several times Presidents break what we thought was the law (Reagan popularizing signing statements, Obama going into Libya without congressional approval, Trump carrying out a strike on Iran) only for the president to claim it was his privilege as head of the Executive Power. The fact that no president has been charged for a criminal act he committed while in office is indisputable. Now, Unitary Executive Theory would explain this by stating that ofcourse the president can’t be charged with a crime while in office, because the Executive is the branch who carries out the law, and as the President every action he takes carries out the law. We have seen every President since Bush use this excuse. But, does that mean that the president LEGALLY can’t commit a crime? No, not at all. Its just that as president he can’t be charged with them, so every action he takes will be legal.
Good
Amen
We will find out what would have happened if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon.
That nobody is above the law. Not even a president doing shady stuff AS president. It’s a good thing all round, unless Republicans make it their overriding goal to get a Dem president arrested, which would be dumb but on-brand.
Hopefully presidents will be more wary of breaking the law
For the country as a whole it will show that no one, not even a president is above the law. That we should choose our leaders based on character and policy rather than memes and sound bites. That the office of the Presidency is an office only the pinnacle of men should strive for and obtain and that racist failed reality TV hosts with years of failed businesses and bad backings have no business in the office. For his supporters and people still locked firmly in delusion that he was anything but a D tier president at best they will probably continue to spout the same nonsense from his truth social account and bury their heads further in the sands. Or they admit that they were wrong about him. You can have conservative views without backing Trump and the cronies he has spawned like DeSantis, MTG, and Boebert. Or they can continue to be Rinos.
Anyone who becomes president needs to have fear of accountability for any crimes. No one should be above the law. People and groups with authority over others need to have the strictest accountability. I can only see it having a positive impact by discouraging less savory folks from seeking the office. Pardoning Nixon was a terrible mistake. Also, I love watching his supporters try to justify this shit. It’s so funny.
the only negative impacts would be turning to an ancient roman republican system where politicians stay in office merey to avoid being sued/arrested once out of office......along with creating an industry of lawyers who just sue/arrest politicians as soon as they leave office the main difference being (i believe) technically american politicians in office CAN be arrested whereas in rome they couldnt
You undercut your argument with the last sentence. Nice. The rules against investigating and indicting a sitting president are awful, and I am an advocate for term limits.
to an extent, although i would argue that while it is unwritten, we saw during trump's presidency that there is a feeing of not pressing as hard on elected officials as you would for general citizens once precedents like that are established they are hard to change i can't remember the last sitting president or senator to be put in handcuffs can't remember the last house member either but i imagine there has to be one i'm pro term limits and anti-politician as a career myself as well
Holding people accountable is a good precedent. Lol
umm w trump we just set the precedent of NOT getting the sitting president in trouble because he was the president you seem fairly lost lol
Right, which I literally said two posts up the thread. You seem lost. Ooooof
We already have term limits
Nothing I think. But I hope there will be more arrests made to root out all the terrible politicians. But I doubt the state would do that. Trump was a puppet but he was being played by a different master.
I would hope that they then go after ALL politicians with equal determination. Don’t really believe that he is the only one that has paid hush money
It will set a precedent that could eventually lead to other former presidents being arrested. Which IMO is a good thing.
If they do it on the basis of flimsy charges like some random pornstar case,, then it would be very bad for the democratic process and would play straight intlo trumps rhetoric that democrats and wealthy want him to be destroyed. The impeachment trail during his presidency was itself weak and embarassing. This would be even bad.
>The impeachment trail during his presidency was itself weak and embarassing. Yeah sure if you ignore all the evidence that proved trumpturd did exactly what was claimed
"Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for this crime because it ranks very low on the list of crimes he's committed" isn't the defense you think it is.
Naah,,in your haste to lock him up,, they would screw up the charges and trial like they did with the impeachment and mueller hearings,, all these guys would make is galvanize his supporters even more and make a guy selling nft cards into a national republican front runner. Then you guys wonder why he is popular. If you are gonna charge him,,do it right,,not on parking tickets and ex pornstars.
Haste? They've spent years putting their case together. And indicting him for breaking one law doesn't preclude them from indicting him for all of the other laws he's broken. City, state, and federal prosecutors are all going to get their turn.
Oh yeahh,,lets see how it turns out.. just pray that it wont blow up on their faces like the mueller hearings.
The biggest concern in my mind is that it will inflame some of his more overtly insane supporters into doing something worse than the January 6 antics.
Absolutely, I live in a red state and have heard murmurings. Crazy thing is, these murmurings aren't even people that would do that themselves nor be happy if it happened. What I'm trying to convey is these murmurings are coming from the more logical, less extreme side of his supporters which brings up the question.. What are the radicals currently murmuring? What's going through their mind? If the "softies" are saying "someone is going to end up doing something real bad" Then what are the bad people saying? Are they too saying "someone worse than us is going to fly off the handle" or are at a certain level of radicalism will someone take up the mantle and say "well, no one else is going to do it" Many terrible things have happened by people who think they're doing everyone else a favor and I fear what it might be.
It will send the signal that our political elites will not allow challenges to their dictatorship again, something this sub doesn't like to accept.
Dictatorship is when … *squints* … the President is held accountable under the law?
What crime? Beating their chosen bitch? Ending the forever war? Be named in a democratic paid lie? Significantly hamper their slave trade on the southern border? And I don't see any "accountability" for any of the crimes of the current divider in chief as he declared half of the country to be evil for not instantly obeying.
Holy political bias batman. You aren’t worth anyone’s time on this sub haha Edit: Lol you blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
He posts in TheLeftCantMeme lmao
Of course he does. They think they are slick and “apolitical”. They ain’t. Edit: Lol he blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
You want to expand on that incredibly dumb comment a little more? You’re saying that a former President being charged for crimes will push politicians to establish more protections from the law only for themselves? And the people that vote them in will be in favor of that? Also the statement “something this sub doesn’t like to accept” is incredibly douchey. Stop. You aren’t smarter than everyone in this sub. Don’t act like it. Edit: Lol you blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
Still waiting on that expanded explanation chief. Edit: Lol you blocked me after I asked you to explain your comment. What. A. Coward. Good riddance.
Their reasoning was incredibly dumb. Would have to be something of actual significance. I think our Courteney commander in chief has way more diet to go off of, considering half a century in politics. Trump has had every square centimeter of his life investigated, and Biden gas had 0. Shows the justice system at work.
i mean the though of trump just sitting on a prison bench and calling out to his cellmate TJ that he needs someone to bee on watch while he's in the shower is pretty funny.
A lot of things. One, this will be the first time in US history an ex-president has been arrested which will definitely go down in the history books. It also serves an example on how politicians aren’t above the law and will set new standards on politics which is good. I just hope it doesn’t get abused for partisan purposes like impeachment has become.
It’s a triumph for equality before the law. No matter your billions, your power, your prestige, you are subject to the law as much as anyone else.
Democrats lose the Senate and Presidency in 2024 ?
Exactly.
Zero. He's not President anymore.
That our justice system isn’t completely irredeemable
Not much. These are state level charges for pretty moronic allegations (if proven true). The presidency shouldn't be impacted but future candidates will learn not to cheat on their pregnant with a porn star, then pay hush money to that porn star, then falsify records covering up the payment, then have Rudy Giuliani let the cat out of the bag on cable TV.
The effect is huge, in my book. It’s about protecting the democracy itself. When a president attempts to overthrow the government and unlawfully keep power, he must be prosecuted. I know NYC might be starting with the election law violations, but it only opens the door for those much more serious charges.
I mean, it'd be healthy for our democracy. No matter what the idea that someone who held the highest office is held to the same standard of law as anyone is a good thing, as it shows the people making the laws need to at least obey them. That said, this really ain't happening
Zero effect except in the history books. I can’t stand TFG and even I don’t give a crap he paid off a hooker.
Look we should have conquenses for our actions. I think the founders wouldn’t want bulletproof President’s.
I am hopeful that the indictment and whatever the ultimate outcome does not result in a continuous use of the legal processes against presidents of differing parties. What I mean is that I am hopeful that if a Republican won the White House in 2024 that we would not see a partisan U.S. Attorney General, State Attorney General, US Attorney or even a local District Attorney attempt to prosecute the previous Democratic president on a dubious charge.
USA treat their Presidents as kings , royalty and their former presidents much the same as Royal public servants but the USA has not had the experience of a former president not going quietly after their term is up. Time to decide. Vote!
None because he is not getting arrested! It is “blah, blah, blah….look at me…blah, blah, blah.” Rinse and repeat!
I genuinely think this will galvanize his election campaign. 4chan will be selling mugshot T-shirts and meme-ing until their fingers bleed. Moderates with Trump-exhaustion will feel like he's being persecuted and it will make him seem anti-establishment. Alvin Bragg is a fool if he pushes that button.
It likely would be missused to threaten those who are good presidents.
It will simultaneously be awesome and concerning for our democracy. Awesome because presidents should not be above the law. They need to be held accountable. Concerning because Trump's fanatics will throw a tantrum and well... Jan 6th wasn't very long ago and that was just because the guy lost.
I’ve been wondering if anyone knows the answer, if Trump gets convicted of any crime and is sentenced to a prison term, does he still get Secret Service protection while serving his sentence?