What seems like a more dangerous precedent to set?

—Prosecuting a former president.

—Letting a former president avoid accountability for conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement, obstruction of an official proceeding, and incitement of an insurrection.

@rbreich Once we set the precedent that former Presidents can be prosecuted, can we just finish off each Presidential term with a war crimes trial?
@EvilWriter @rbreich .....yeah? I'm cool with that.
@wafflesid @EvilWriter @rbreich how about we don’t ever prosecute a president and let the next bully just kill anyone that he does like? If you don’t like that idea, tell me what you would do about if a president who couldn’t be prosecuted starts murdering his political enemies? You do realize that Trump, by sending the mob to the Capitol, was not too far from doing just that.

@jimfranf @wafflesid @rbreich How about we prosecute all former presidents for their many crimes?

I'm not being facetious. Every living President is guilty of war crimes (except perhaps Jimmy Carter, but maybe even him.) Prosecute 'em all.

It gets Trump too, so don't worry, we still lock up the fascist.

@EvilWriter @jimfranf @wafflesid @rbreich

No one wants to prosecute DJT for war crimes. They want to prosecute him for domestic terrorism and insurrection for instigating and leading an attack on his own country's capitol and election process.
If future Congresses want to waste taxpayer money trying to make the case that every president needs to be tried for that then go for it. GLWT.

@tshort9 @jimfranf @wafflesid @rbreich Yes, I'm well aware what the four charges recommended by the Jan 6th committee are.

And holding Presidents accountable for the crimes they commit would never be a waste of taxpayer money.

It's true that we likely would never send former Presidents before the World Court to be tried for war crimes, because we don't acknowledge the World Court and the US is an imperialist and colonialist nation. But it would be a wonderful thing if we did.