JohnB3
Robert ReichI still hear people arguing that prosecuting a former president sets a βdangerous precedent.β
The truly dangerous precedent would be to establish that presidents are above the law.
Whyrl@rbreich Said former president has already set many dangerous precedents. Nobody should be above the law.
Pastor of Muppets@rbreich they've made this argument going back to Nixon. It's only hurt us. We can survive convicting a criminal more than we can survive electing one.
Darwin Woodka@middleclasstool @rbreich at least Nixon had the fucking decency to resign and stay mostly out of the public eye afterwards
Daisy Doo & TuxieGirl Betty@middleclasstool @rbreich
Exactly
We must deal with the underlying conditions, hatred, corruption, greed, etc. that made it possible for him to be elected.
Exactly
We must deal with the underlying conditions, hatred, corruption, greed, etc. that made it possible for him to be elected.
Toadman628@rbreich Once a leader says he no worse than this other leader in the past, watch out! Burglars are not the same as a mob with weapons.
@rbreich indeed pardoning Richard Nixon set a dangerous precedent.
@rbreich
The dangerous precedent was Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon.
The dangerous precedent was Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon.
Steve Popovich@rbreich Trump himself Is what I would call a "dangerous president". Dangerous when he was in office, and even more so if he should get back in.
jay@rbreich I'll take dangerous precedent over dangerous president
Stargeezer Smith@rbreich
If we can't prosecute a former President for crimes , what next -- former Senators, former Congressmen, former CEOs?
If we can't prosecute a former President for crimes , what next -- former Senators, former Congressmen, former CEOs?
Paul SchoeGiven that nobody goes to prison when large corporations do illegal things, sometimes being fined hundreds of millions, it makes me feel that CEOs already will never be prosecuted for their actions.
I wonder how much money will flow to Congress once a CEO is held responsible for the activities of the company that they lead. All to prevent that.
@paulschoe @rbreich
True enough, but there are a few notable exceptions. Bernie Madoff went to prison for his ponzi scheme. Dan Rostenkowski was kicked out of Congress and put in prison for his mail fraud. Martha Stewart did some time for insider trading. Rod Blagojavich, former governor of Illinois, was jailed for public corruption.
So accountability has been exercised in at least a few cases.
True, but those are not the types of companies that I refer to. Bernie was basically the CEO of his own company; the same applies to Martha Steward.
I refer to CEOs of publicly traded companies being personally held criminally responsible for the actions that happened under their watch and that sometimes they even ordered to be carried out.
Carrie βπ»π«π€π»@rbreich LOCK HIM UP!
Vick Forcella β’ππ³βοΈβοΈ:verifi@rbreich The Dutch have eaten a politician. That's a precedent that should warn off some politicians.
@rbreich
Presidents, above all others, SHOULD be first to be subject to the law!
Presidents, above all others, SHOULD be first to be subject to the law!
Dark Horse@rbreich you already established that Robert. Joe Biden committed felonies for which he is escaping prosecution.
Joe βπ@rbreich Many of the people who make that argument live in a post-truth world. To them there are no facts: Democrats say this, Republicans say that, it would be a violation of neutrality and journalistic ethics to take sides. Since there is no truth and Trump's supporters say the prosecution of him is political, that in their minds would justify jailing of Democrats if the GOP to gains power, no evidence needed because evidence is about what is true and there is no truth, only spin.
Martijn Vos
opinaelsoberanoLo mismo deberΓa valer para jueces, ejΓ©rcito y policΓa...
naught101@rbreich let's be real: probably most of them should have been prosecuted for something. Propagating international wars at the very least.
tibbi β¨@rbreich I wish we could go back in time a arrest Andrew Jackson. Now there was a stain on the office.
AntJBro@rbreich dangerous precedent, dangerous president, letβs not call the whole thing off (apols to Messrs Gershwin)
xs4me2Especially for a criminal like Trump⦠he should under no circumstance be able to get away with this.
Clare Harris π
DanDan420@rbreich Trump should have been in handcuffs on Jan 6th.
SearingTruth"What piece of dirt on this planet were you randomly born on?
Does that entitle you to more or less life, or compassion or justice?"
SearingTruth
A Lloyd Flanagan@rbreich I remember Watergate. Nixon was a deeply flawed man, but Trump is worse.
Calamity Joan π·@rbreich "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen@clickhere @rbreich Β«Have you read this Article Two? It lets me do anything!Β»
silentwriter180I couldn't agree more.
JohnWIt's such a ridiculous argument. If they're playing the violence card, wait until you see what happens if he doesn't get prosecuted!
Oggie@rbreich The interesting thing to me about this, is that was the exact argument to not do anything to Nixon. Because that would set a dangerous precedent and then all our presidents would be constantly in legal battles.
That didn't really happen, and in fact, if we'd actually done more that direction we probably wouldn't be in so much trouble now with Trump. So let's try that version for a bit!
lopta@rbreich What's the purpose of a president at that point? Essentially a temporary monarch?
@paulschoe @rbreich I really do need to get a new passport this year.
Dean F.@rbreich Didn't people argue the same thing during Watergate?
Jason, Human, Average 
@rbreich
I guess it's helpful to know who the hopelessly wrong people are and they just told you who they are.
I guess it's helpful to know who the hopelessly wrong people are and they just told you who they are.
@rbreich Maybe they shouldn't have all voted for a criminal in the first place.
Annie@rbreich Trump is why I've changed my mind on the Nixon pardon. I'm willing to accept Ford may have been sincere in his intent to move the country past things, but it robbed us of a precedent we could really use right now.
J.SΚα΄Κα΄ππΊπ¦FΚα΄α΄α΄
α΄α΄&Dα΄α΄α΄α΄Κα΄α΄Κ
David Nice@rbreich The first is such a non-starter. Crime is crime.
Peter Bowden ππβ‘ π·ππππ@rbreich Surely it only sets a precedent because no previous president was accused of criminal acts? All precedents are set because something unusual heppened.
John Douglas Porter@B31Bowden Fair enough... But is it a dangerous precedent?
FediThing 
France prosecuted and convicted former president Nicolas Sarkozy for corruption in 2021, he even got sentenced to jail. France didn't collapse, it barely made the news elsewhere.
In democracies, it is 100% normal to prosecute presidents if there's good evidence they broke the law.
Christ van Willegen