Nick D
Robert ReichWhat seems like a more dangerous precedent to set?
—Prosecuting a former president
—Letting a former president avoid accountability for allegedly stealing classified documents and then conspiring to obstruct the government's efforts to retrieve them
MrShoggoth@rbreich - Ooo! I know this one!!!
Jack Jackson@rbreich the implicit assumption in the former case seems to be that justice systems could be suborned to "attack" political rivals. If that's the concern, fix *that* rather than carving out exclusions that the justice system cannot touch!
João AzevedoIf former US presidents where prosecutable every US president since at least Nixon would have been in Jail.
The policy of prosecuting former presidents is an assurance for whoever the current is president that he he wont go to jail for whatever he does like start a war on false pretenses (e.g Iraq, etc)
It's a "feature" of the current system, not "a flaw". And it sucks.
John Breen
QuestionSasquatch (he/him)@jab01701mid @rbreich Meh. Just kick that can to the next sprint. (Why'd you have to mix coding and politics!?)
@questionsasquatch @rbreich I don't just scrub my backlog, I make it bigger !
Jason Kraus@rbreich what's next, holding the supreme court to a standard of ethics? Won't someone think of the norms!
nikol@rbreich Equal. Both have been done in the past. In addition, the fact has been revealed already. What am I expecting to happen? I really can't immagine which one may happen.
Scenario@rbreich @Americanist4u Dems, the DOJ and two state prosecutors aren’t taking this seriously enough. This strategy of appeasement and deference is going to backfire.
Dems have learned absolutely nothing from Pelosi’s failed strategy to slow-walk the J6C. Nor from Garland allowing the SoL to expire on Mueller’s obstruction charges.
Hugh Young-BishSince that is a rhetorical question about a hypothetical situation, naming nobody, I think you can leave off the "allegedly'.
And Tr*mp° is a bit distracted and short of competent lawyers to sue you.
°(pace Chris Christie, I will go on bowdlerising his name)
NCYonathan@rbreich A president should be the most scrutizined person in a democratic country. Every transgression dealt with to the full extent of the law.
Why? Because as president, you have the duty of being an example on how democracy works.
Why? Because as president, you have the duty of being an example on how democracy works.
Truth
Phil Allsopp@rbreich The only thing I'd change, Professor Reich is the word "allegedly"...Trump admitted he stole them, kept them, asserted all the documents were his to take, obstructed justice and showed classified documents to people with zero security clearance. There's no "Allege" in any of this.
JR
LyndeeHe's guilty, but he will never see a day in jail.
Edelruth, PBS Passport HolderWhich alternative is more likely to lead to China dropping a bomb on my head.
Lock him up, and take away his phone.
Rick@rbreich The first is not a a dangerous precedent at all.
NeveranR@rbreich The precedent that should have been set, was prosecuting a sitting President for the obvious crimes that he publicly admitted to!!!
EarthOne@rbreich Anyone who believes or hopes Trump didn't share or sell these documents with foreign agents and govts. is gullible, naive, and a rube.
Of course he did. He's always transactional and he loves power, so he's probably sold them to so many, who have done the same, they're no longer financial leverage for him other than to the last level of dupes.
tibbi ✨@rbreich I sometimes wonder if Carter hadn’t pardoned Nixon if this would be going better.
Nate O
Kataphract@rbreich Honestly if there are people that take the first one as a precedent as a result of this ongoing trial, they should not be in government.
Rick@rbreich And, yet, we have millions of mind--numbed minions who have seen his actions, heard him speak, but will tell you with a straight face that "he did nothing wrong". I weep for my country.
Toadman628@rbreich Democracy is messy, and it's important to expose opinions from facts to validate truth.
Graham Lester@rbreich If a president can pardon himself then the entire Constitution becomes worthless. Even a Supreme Court justice can see that. Except Clarence, of course.
Aleggra#2. Letting any leader—**especially a president get away with a criminal offense leads us down the chilling path to fascism/dictatorship and the breakdown of the rule of law.
The phrase, “No one is above the law” is meaningless unless it’s vigorously enforced.
@rbreich important to prosecute