5 ms·

Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global pea

Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.) P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake. [0] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline [Note it has been updated since 2000.]

xp84 1y ago
(i'm not GP but...) You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime. That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text=On%20July%201%2C%202024%2C%20the,no%20immunity%20for%20unofficial%20acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...
- eftychis 1y ago
  Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.) The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane. But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options: Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
  - btilly 1y ago
    The case where the precedent was set suggests that it is within the outer perimeter of what the President does to give a speech designed to whip up a crowd before they head them off to the Capitol to attempt a coup. While Trump may go farther than that, it is hard to imagine any other President in our history who would have considered doing anything more deserving of criminal prosecution in a US court. Given how polarized our country has become and the requirement for a 2/3 majority in the Senate, it is also difficult to see how we could ever again wind up in a situation where the threat of impeachment is a significant concern to a sitting President. Given the current state of the Republican party, I'm not even sure whether an attempted military coup by Trump would get that result.
    - xp84 1y ago
      I agree completely. He doesn’t need to do a coup now that he has absolute power for four more years given the vacuum of leadership that is the legislative branch, but he absolutely would get away with it if he chooses to someday.
- roenxi 1y ago
  > I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime... You could have stopped the sentence here; most US presidents are responsible for acts that appear to be criminal but for the fact that it is political convention not to charge them. The most egregious case I recall was Anwar Al-Awlaki [0] - where he seems to have been killed on the president's orders without actually having done anything specific to justify it. Searching for "crime" on his Wikipedia page turns up nothing much. If a president isn't publicly investigated by the judicial system for having a US citizen killed it is hard to see when charges would be appropriate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
  - jollofricepeas 1y ago
    I agree. The story of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his American US-born son who was killed in the attack authorized by the Obama administration must not be forgotten. The issue of presidential powers and conduct must be a non-partisan issue. Trump merely walked through the cracks created under Obama. Being well-intentioned (“protecting Americans against terrorism”) is not sufficient excuse for murdering an American minor due to the sins of his father no matter how much the Obama administration DOJ attempted to make it legally permissible to do so.
    - greedo 1y ago
      <Trump merely walked through the cracks created under Obama.> Which were dependent on the GWB administration (forced renditions, torture prisons), the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra etc), the Nixon Administration (Watergate etc), FDR's admin (concentration camps), on and on and on. The expansion of Presidential power is non-partisan. Congress would be the logical counterbalance but other than in fits and starts has generally abdicated this role to the SCOTUS which has now been captured by believers in the unitary Presidency.
  - dullcrisp 1y ago
    Did you actually read the article you linked, or just search for the word “crime?”

xp84 1y ago

(i'm not GP but...) You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime. That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text=On%20July%201%2C%202024%2C%20the,no%20immunity%20for%20unofficial%20acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...

eftychis 1y ago
Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.) The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane. But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options: Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
- btilly 1y ago
  The case where the precedent was set suggests that it is within the outer perimeter of what the President does to give a speech designed to whip up a crowd before they head them off to the Capitol to attempt a coup. While Trump may go farther than that, it is hard to imagine any other President in our history who would have considered doing anything more deserving of criminal prosecution in a US court. Given how polarized our country has become and the requirement for a 2/3 majority in the Senate, it is also difficult to see how we could ever again wind up in a situation where the threat of impeachment is a significant concern to a sitting President. Given the current state of the Republican party, I'm not even sure whether an attempted military coup by Trump would get that result.
  - xp84 1y ago
    I agree completely. He doesn’t need to do a coup now that he has absolute power for four more years given the vacuum of leadership that is the legislative branch, but he absolutely would get away with it if he chooses to someday.
roenxi 1y ago
> I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime... You could have stopped the sentence here; most US presidents are responsible for acts that appear to be criminal but for the fact that it is political convention not to charge them. The most egregious case I recall was Anwar Al-Awlaki [0] - where he seems to have been killed on the president's orders without actually having done anything specific to justify it. Searching for "crime" on his Wikipedia page turns up nothing much. If a president isn't publicly investigated by the judicial system for having a US citizen killed it is hard to see when charges would be appropriate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- jollofricepeas 1y ago
  I agree. The story of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his American US-born son who was killed in the attack authorized by the Obama administration must not be forgotten. The issue of presidential powers and conduct must be a non-partisan issue. Trump merely walked through the cracks created under Obama. Being well-intentioned (“protecting Americans against terrorism”) is not sufficient excuse for murdering an American minor due to the sins of his father no matter how much the Obama administration DOJ attempted to make it legally permissible to do so.
  - greedo 1y ago
    <Trump merely walked through the cracks created under Obama.> Which were dependent on the GWB administration (forced renditions, torture prisons), the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra etc), the Nixon Administration (Watergate etc), FDR's admin (concentration camps), on and on and on. The expansion of Presidential power is non-partisan. Congress would be the logical counterbalance but other than in fits and starts has generally abdicated this role to the SCOTUS which has now been captured by believers in the unitary Presidency.
- dullcrisp 1y ago
  Did you actually read the article you linked, or just search for the word “crime?”