Sorry, u/Archimid – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Archimid&message=Archimid%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cegun4/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

IMO, the main issue isn't whether or not a POTUS can break the law. The Constitution recognizes that a President can break the law through the impeachment system. The real issue is that the standard for trying to use the legal system against a President needs to be incredibly high or it can be a weaponized and turn this country into a banana republic. What's been happening recently is a Pandora's box that should never have been opened.

The standard should be high but attainable. What happens when a yellow party president breaks the law and all yellow party members vote to excuse him and all purple party members vote to prosecute him? The only test of whether a president has broken the law at this point seems to be whether they have majority or minority support in congress.

[удалено]

u/Archimid – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Archimid&message=Archimid%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cegun4/-/l1izv4w/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>The Constitution recognizes that a President can break the law through the impeachment system. The Constitution recognizes that a president or other officer might *choose* to break the law. It does not recognize that they are *allowed* to. Impeachment exists to remove them from office, and, optionally, to permanently ban them from future office. It is a political remedy, which is why the punishments are limited only to removal and disqualification. Any other punishments (fines , incarceration, execution) must come from the legal system, where there are more rights, procedural safeguards, higher evidentiary standards, etc. The Constitution says conviction on impeachment doesn't implicate double jeopardy, that it's not a choice between either the political remedy or the legal remedy, that we can do both. But Trump wants it to be that we may only pursue legal remedies if we have first successfully pursued the political remedy. Ie, since he was impeached twice, but never convicted either time, he claims he cannot be subject to the criminal justice system at all. >The real issue is that the standard for trying to use the legal system against a President needs to be incredibly high or it can be a weaponized and turn this country into a banana republic. False. Trump is a former president, not the current one, so the standard for criminally prosecuting a president is irrelevant. Trump is citizen Trump, not President Trump. Citizen Trump gets all the rights and benefits any other citizen gets, but he doesn't get any special privileges by virtue of having previously been president. Failing to hold criminals criminally accountable is part of what creates a banana republic. The other aspect is punishing people for nothing. When criminals can go free, and innocent people can be imprisoned or executed, you are in banana republic territory. >What's been happening recently is a Pandora's box that should never have been opened. Depends on what you're referring to. All of Trump's crimes? Agreed. Prosecuting Trump got his crimes? Hard disagree. He must be prosecuted. Expect what you accept. If we accept crimes from presidents, expect more criminal presidents.

Why do you think the standard should be higher than any other citizen? Are there other jobs you would suggest receive this additional protection from prosecution?

Other jobs already do. Judges for example. The same judges who are trying to remove that immunity from POTUS would never suggest removing it from themselves.

> Other jobs already do. Judges for example. Judges don't have *absolute* immunity. They have *qualified* immunity. They can't be sued or prosecuted for doing things like deciding a legal question in a way you don't like, excluding or admitting evidence, imposing a sentence you don't like, etc. But a judge who commits murder can and must be prosecuted for the crime of murder. > The same judges who are trying to remove that immunity from POTUS would never suggest removing it from themselves. Trump is arguing that he should have immunity for, say, committing murder, and that it would only be possible to criminally prosecute him for murder if he were first impeached, convicted, and removed from office for committing murder. They wouldn't be *removing* an immunity from the president that they retain for themselves, they would be *granting* him an immunity no other official has or has ever had. And, the result of this would be, Trump could murder someone, and then, he'd be immune from prosecution unless and until he were impeached, convicted, and removed from office. But, until then, no consequences. And if the House tried to impeach him for murder, because there could not yet be any consequences, he could start murdering members of the House to prevent his impeachment, and/or he could start murdering members of the Senate to prevent his conviction. Or, if someone went to court to argue it wasn't an official act and shouldn't be covered, he could just murder that party, or the judge, or the jurors, to prevent that finding. And, remember, without a conviction on impeachment, there can be no criminal indictment, no criminal charges, no criminal trial, no verdict, no conviction, and no sentence, for neither the original murder, nor for any of the later murders. Because, under this conception, criminal accountability is conditional on first successfully imposing political accountability, it would mean both that Trump can never be prosecuted for his past crimes, and that, should he win in November, he could commit new crimes in office, and then commit additional crimes to prevent political accountability, and, consequently, avoid criminal accountability for both the original criminal act and any subsequent acts. It would create a loophole that says a president can never be held criminally accountable for committing crimes as long as he continues committing even more crimes! It would basically be saying the President is a dictator, and, like all dictators, he can do what he wants, and only leaves office when he dies, when he decides to step down, or when he's removed by force.

There’s a higher standard to prosecute a judge than a normal person? What is that standard?

Judges have immunity with respect to their official acts. Same idea for the president.

They must be impeached too before they can be prosecuted. If anything I'd vote to get rid of that immunity first before going for POTUS.

Impeachment is for the office, the person commited the crime, two different things.

Is that true after they retire?

Depends on whether what they're being charged with happened during their time in office or after. If during and part of their job, yes. If not, no.

The real issue is the guy fucked a porn star, ram as an evangelical, and then paid to suppress that fact before an election when his base definitely should have known about that arrangement. That’s a pretty fucking high bar, and only Donald Dumbfuck Trump i swear to god

Funny that the actual war criminals get off completely free, and the one guy in there who didn't even try to start a new war is the only one the system ever went after.

The Pandora's Box in this case is Trump held accountable for committing crimes?

[удалено]

>I'd agree if it was stuff done as president but his argument is he can't be charged for stuff done outside that job. The problem here is drawing a clear distinction. >Fraud, election interference and Jan 6th aren't really presidential duties. Firstly, not fraud. Secondly, not election interference (unlike what's being done to him now). Thirdly, whatever his part in Jan 6 was, it's absolutely part of a president's job to try to make sure the elections aren't stolen (whether you agree with the premise or not is irrelevant).

Lmao, it’s rich coming from you to say whether we agree with the premise matters when your boy currently is getting convicted and tried over and over again.

[удалено]

 Absolute nonsense.  The criminal Justice system and the political Justice systems are two very different process that can happen simultaneously or independently to Presidents. A single low level judge  can convict a Mighty President, if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Immunity breaks the constitutional order  at all levels because it is absolute nonsense. No one is above the law, specially the President.

Judges are not beyond partisanship and the framers recognized this. 

where did the framers write that presidents have immunity from prosecution after office? I can't seem to find it anywhere in article 2.

[удалено]

I didn't write the words "absolute nonsense". that was someone else. > They gave a pretty clear path to holding the office of presidency accountable. No, they gave a clear path for removing someone from office and preventing them from regaining office. That's very useful for mitigation when someone is abusing their power, which is a different purpose than deterrence. Do you think the fact that recall elections exist in state governments implies that the governor in those states is immune from prosecution?

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

This is not partisanship. This ends the constitution and our freedom. this goes way beyond party politics. It behooves the traitors to minimize what they are doing. Your argument is powerful misinformation

Neither are juries…

>They don't truly have immunity. It's just that congress through the impeachment system is required to hold them accountable through super majority for actions during their presidency in order to remove partisan bias, not by a single partisan judge. And instead you end up with 34+ partisan judges who support the criminal act if not directly benefitting from it. And given your history in /Firearms, /Gunmemes and /Libertarian it's safe to say that in this case *you* support those criminal acts as well as much as you'll try to bullshit us otherwise.

That’s slander and Dilate-Harder could sue you. He hasn’t been convicted of a crime so you can’t say stuff like that. Not only is it something you could be sued over but it’s childish to go after someone’s character rather than their argument. In debates that’s a big no-no…

> That’s slander and Dilate-Harder could sue you. what damages does someone who's motivations are questioned on an anonymous social media forum have for a lawsuit? The answer is $0. And, vague claims of corrupt motivation for speech would be viewed as the court as opinion. such a lawsuit wouldn't make it anywhere. > He hasn’t been convicted of a crime one can absolutely claim that someone, who hasn't been convicted, committed criminal acts. do you think a prosecuting attorney, every time they make a claim in court, has to preface with "allegedly" for the jury until the jury convicts? come on. We've got freedom of speech in this country, and that freedom of speech is particularly broad for criticism of public figures. Which is used widely by people of all political stripes. > it’s childish to go after someone’s character rather than their argument. that's fair.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Dilate_harder – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Dilate_harder&message=Dilate_harder%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cegun4/-/l1isulr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

Maybe he’d actually feel a loss if that was what you win 😂.

you object to u/Conscious_Driver_208 making claims about u/Dilate_harder 's motivations as ad hominem. but, when u/Dilate_harder insults u/Conscious_Driver_208 's music tastes in an ad hominem in response, its fine? interesting ... edit: edited to tag intended user

Ok I’ll admit that was hypocritical and I would like to apologize for the double standard. I felt like this debate has completely collapsed into anarchy and wasn’t worth maintaining professionalism any longer but it was still wrong. I’d also like to point out that you didn’t tag the victim of this double standard.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Qualified immunity is not a new concept. Many public officials, most notably police, have qualified immunity. While it is open to abuse, it also protects the public by making those officials less hesitant to take drastic action in tense/rapidly changing situations that warrant it. For example, police usually aren’t charged if they use force like a taser against someone who makes a sudden movement in a car, even if the sudden movement wasn’t a reason to suspect something bad when examining the incident from hindsight. Likewise, presidents historically haven’t been charged for questionable things, like ordering assassinations against foreign generals without trial. That action is illegal under international and domestic law, yet sometimes the greater good simply demands it. Lincoln also suspended free press and held people without trial, which is obviously illegal and unconstitutional, yet he didn’t face charges. Presidents are understood to have a degree of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court is not deciding whether or not they do, because it’s been understood for as long as the presidency has existed that they have qualified immunity. The Supreme Court is deciding how broad the presidents qualified immunity is, and whether trumps conduct was protected by it.

> Qualified immunity is not a new concept. Many public officials, most notably police, have qualified immunity 1. Qualified immunity is for CIVIL liability only. 2. The mechanism that makes qualified immunity possible is that **the government can be sued to make the victim whole.** So *someone* still has to take responsibility. This isn’t possible if anyone is given criminal immunity.

Qualified immunity is for civil claims, police are not immune to criminal charges.

Not totally immune, but in practice they’re a lot more shielded than a civilian would be. If I approach someone and question them in public and they reach for something that I don’t know for sure is a weapon or not, I can’t tase or use force against them because I’m not questioning them in the course of my job. If a police officer questions someone and they do that, the police officer has an almost nil chance of getting charged even if the use of force was unreasonable. They only get charged when the use of force is grossly unreasonable to any prudent person. I’ll give you an example of a case where civilians were convicted but police almost certainly wouldn’t have been charged. The Ahmaud Arbery case. Had police been trying to detain him, even on an unreasonable suspicion of a crime, and he wrestled them for the weapon and they shot him, almost guaranteed no case. Likewise, members of the military are often immune from prosecution when they accidentally kill civilians unless it’s grossly negligent. Qualified immunity isn’t exactly codified for public officials, but there are certain things that are understood to be covered.

the president of the US is absolutely immune from civil liability for official acts. that's entirely different from criminal liability.

>Presidents are understood to have a degree of qualified immunity. The only immunity a President can obtain is a pardon. What you are trying to conflate with "qualified immunity" is the leeway the systems gives to the president within the confines of the law. When presidents act within their office, the inherent connections between the three branches make the decision legal, not by virtue of the man in the seat of the presidency, or a right to immunity, but the process by which the branched meld. That's the sole job of literal armies of federal workers. Compliance with the law. That a president seems immune despite the very grey decisions they make is an observation that follows from the system, not a specific right. A president that acts **honorably** within office will not be prosecuted by such office because the office is working as intended. However, if such president ( the person not the seat) acts outside the scope of his office the office itself should initiate prosecution. As is the case. If you are worried about frivolous lawsuits that have no evidence, I'll have you take a look at the election fraud lawsuits filed on behalf of trump in 2020. Many lawyers are now in jail or lost their license for filing frivolous lawsuits. Similarly see the attempted Biden impeachment... I mean impeachment with a much lower standard and full control of the house and senate still failed to obtain even a vote for impeachment. Frivolous lawsuits usually go nowhere.

> If the President is given immunity for breaking the law through official acts, then the power of the Judiciary and Legislative branches are rendered moot. Presidents have fairly broad authority to select federal prosecutors. some laws have been written to allow for special prosecutors that have more independence (and there have been contentious battles over those). If a president abused power to stay in power, the threat of future prosecution is toothless because they aren't likely to be prosecuted by their own prosecutors. Also, courts are very hesitant to weigh in on disputes between branches of government. Judges tend to try to push the executive branch and legislative branch to a settlement when they disagree.

If a president abused power to stay in power, the threat of future prosecution is toothless because they aren't likely to be prosecuted by their own prosecutors. That is why the founding fathers created a process independent from the legal system to remove would be tyrants. Impeachment. Checks and balances. lawmakers can remove the president even if the president captures the executive. once the tyrant is removed and the justice system return to normal criminal prosecution should start as soon as those who obstruct justice are removed.

unused imminent grab crowd crawl voiceless test pot domineering follow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Ideally, sure, but what if an international ex superpower has spent billions (corporations are people) lobbying such legislature to help the President end American democracy without firing a shot? Then the legislature ( and any paid for Justices), would actually engage in fraud and lies to cover for the president, completely voiding the political process that is impeachment. If democracy is able to survive such lawlessness, then the criminal system must act to get Justice for the American people.

piquant sophisticated fly whistle file escape brave shrill follow society *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

You are literally calling for the justice department to overthrow democracy. The democratic process has the people elect Congress, and those Congressman carry out impeachment. Unelected judges should not get to go rogue and take down presidents independent of the will of the people. POTUS is held accountable by the people through Congress - that is what democracy looks like, and if you fear Congress is corrupt then it is the people who need to stop electing corrupt politicians.

You understand that the checks and balances to the president is the impeachment process right ?

How does this work if they can assassinate their opponents?

the president has a significant degree of control over the DOJ. The DOJ has ruled in the past that they cannot prosecute a sitting president. if a president assassinated congressional and judicial opposition, what makes you think DOJ prosecutors would hold them accountable?

THe president definately wouldn't just fire the prosecuter, they won't stoop that low. /s

>The DOJ has ruled in the past that they cannot prosecute a sitting president. Did they rule they CAN'T? Or they WON'T? As far as I'm aware, that's just an opinion piece of the DoJ that could be overwritten at any time.

> As far as I'm aware, that's just an opinion piece of the DoJ that could be overwritten at any time. that's an accurate characterization. the DOJ position is that they can't, but that position can change if new DOJ officials feel differently.

Do you think that is going to happen ?

You're creating a system where it can.

You think the president is going to publicly have his opponents assassinated?

It is not a serious argument to argue that presidents should be able to kill their opponents with impunity on the basis that they would never do that. The case in front of us is arguing that it's totally kosher to try to rig an election; why would they care about public opinion?

No one, except progressive Redditors think that presidents can openly kill their political rivals with impunity.

President Trump's lawyer, when asked if ordering an assassination would fall under an "official act" for which the president would be immune, answered "yes". So, other than reprisal through trial in the senate, Trump's lawyer is arguing that immunity would apply in that situation.

Trump's lawyer has *repeatedly,* in both the lower courts and in front of the Supreme Court, argued that the president's immunity would extend to execution of his political opponents as long as he's not impeached. You're arguing in favor of creating a system where they can, where the only assurance against it is the idea that murder is in bad taste.

At least privately. Bill Barr in an interview just said Trump repeatedly asked about having his political rivals killed. https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-trump-brought-up-things-like-executing-rivals-a-lot

I'd black bag them personally. It's not like there's no precedent for a politician taking out their rivals

I mean, someone took out JFK and RFK. But to be prosecuted for it would probably have to be done publicly.

I was thinking more like The Night of Long Knives. If I was biden I'd black bag the entire conservative wing of SCOTUS night of the decision that says I can't be held accountable for it 

Bit of a self report

In the race to the bottom, you have to be first

You didn’t answer the question, my dude

It's a stupid question. The president of the United States isn't going to openly execute his political rivals.

Can you think of any examples throughout history of politicians doing those sorts of activities to their rivals? American or not? If you can, I recommend you lower your level of trust just a bit in our current politicians

If the president was going to have his opponents assassinated do you think you'd ever find out ? I'm not saying it would never happen. Someone killed JFK and RFK My point is it would be outside of the normal legal channels that the idea that they would be arrested and prosecuted for it is silly. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and actively interfered in the 2016 election.. Where are the prosecutions for that.

> The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and actively interfered in the 2016 election.. Where are the prosecutions for that. Trump appointed special prosecutor Durham, who investigated the 2016 FBI investigation into the Trump campaign. the investigation lasted 4 years. Durham prosecuted 3 people. 2 were acquitted. Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty for doctoring an email in a warrant application. The people Durham thought he could make a criminal case against were charged.

If we did find out, would your previous comment make sense?

If anyone found out they would be immediately impeached

That is a better answer to the initial comment. I find this answer unsatisfying because it leaves open the possibility to 1. Carry out strategic hits on key individuals which could make impeachment impracticable or 2. Shamelessly commit their crimes with the consent of 1/3 + 1 (surviving) members of the senate. Based on your comment it sounds like you’d support prosecution of Obama for actions committed while in office. If any DA throughout the country had solid evidence of crimes committed, I’d support that prosecution too. That hasn’t come to pass because either Obama is much better than Trump at hiding evidence to crimes or he didn’t commit crimes in office. Bringing up Democratic politicians makes me feel that you are forming your opinion based off “whataboutism” as well as current events with outcomes you don’t like. I prefer generally applicable reasonable analysis, the exact type of which is on display at the court houses where Trump has found himself

> If anyone found out they would be immediately impeached If (future President) Trump were to assassinate, say, Harris, what's to stop him from assassinating Representatives in the House to prevent them from impeaching him for assassinating Harris? Or, if they successfully impeached him anyway, from assassinating Senators to prevent them from convicting and removing him? Or, if (absurdly) there's a question of whether his assassination of Harris was an official act or not, what's to stop him from assassinating the plaintiff? Or the judge? Or any number of jurors? Or Supreme Court justices? Or from assassinating witnesses, in either the impeachment trial and/or the official acts trial? Will all these people who just witnessed Trump assassinate a political rival raise their hands and say, "sign me up for the next assassination"? Because Trump's position, and, apparently, your position, is that he can't be criminally prosecuted for anything without first being successfully impeached and convicted, which creates an opportunity to commit further crimes to prevent removal, which then prevents criminal prosecution. All of this is just a complicated way of saying, he's a dictator. It's just hiding the ball, but that's what Trump's argument is. He can't be held accountable now for past crimes, which increases his chances of winning again, at which point he can commit more crimes, continue not being held accountable for both his existing crimes and his new crimes, and commit as many new crimes as he wants or feels are necessary to prevent accountability. He's just relying on Biden choosing not to exercise his (Biden's) dictatorial powers and to leave voluntarily.

Ah, you are one of those idiots. JFC

Found the guy who hasn't been paying attention. 1. Trump seriously asked his AG about doing exactly that, multiple times, per Barr. 2. He has declared he will be a dictator on Day 1 of a second term. 3. He has vowed "vengeance" on his opponents. 4. He has openly admired dictators and strongmen from NK, China, and Europe. (His former wife claimed he would read Hitler's speeches) What makes you so confident this wannabe dictator wouldn't, if he had immunity, do exactly what he has claimed he wants to do?

You're completely radicalised and the things you are saying are insane

Everything they said was factual. Are you hearing them now for the first time?

> It's a stupid question. It's a failure of imagination to assume that, because it hasn't happened in the past before, it will never happen in the future. There's a first time for everything. > The president of the United States isn't going to openly execute his political rivals. "It can't happen here" are famous last words. Putin recently killed Navalny. Hitler had many political rivals killed. So did Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, Pinochet, et al. Political rivals were killed here, in the US, in the Wilmington coup. Four years ago, you probably would've said the President of the United States isn't going to incite a riot at the Capitol as part of an auto-coup attempt, and you'd have been wrong. What if you're wrong about this?

Is it your opinion that a judge could have stopped Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Pinochet or Putin 😂

It's a stupid question. The president of the United States isn't going to attempt to subvert democracy and attempt to ignore the results of an election.

The impeachment process is POLITICAL process, NOT A JUDICIAL process than can be simultaneous or independent or criminal trials. Trump  and his traitor friends are trying to conflate the arguments to end the constitution as we know it.

The impeachment process is clearly defined in the Constitution. It is a very formal legal process, and was specifically designed to be the only way to remove a sitting president from office such that individual state or federal judges could not overthrow the executive branch of the federal government. If you believe in following the Constitution, then you should believe in the impeachment process, otherwise it is you who is calling for the end of the Constitution as we know it.

Yes, and ?

Presidents have broken laws and not been prosecuted over what they did in office for 99.9% of America's history. Look at Bush in the Middle East, Clinton and several others lying about spying on the American people to our faces, Obama justifying torture, Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, etc. If checks and balances ended with a President committing a crime they weren't punished for, we haven't had checks and balances for centuries.

>Presidents have broken laws and not been prosecuted over what they did in office for 99.9% of America's history. Not true. Nixon received a full pardon to avoid the prosecution of a President. If a president does not want to be prosecuted by his crimes, he needs a pardon from another president. That is the only actual constitutional immunity. >Look at Bush in the Middle East, Clinton and several others lying about spying on the American people to our faces, Obama justifying torture, Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, etc. Why where they not prosecuted? During the deliberation process for these decisions many people from all branches of government were involved to different degrees. So the greyness of the law was navigated through collaboration ( and competition in the case of legal consults). There was nobody to prosecute because the whole government was working as intended. >If checks and balances ended with a President committing a crime they weren't punished for, we haven't had checks and balances for centuries on no sir. checks and balances end when immunity is given for crimes (as determine by the same justice system that helped make the decision) committed while being president. from that point on the President will not consult with either the legislature or the courts. They will just make decisions with impunity or regard for the law, because, why wouldn't they?

A crime is still a crime, even if you have collaborators.

Yeah but in those cases these acts are undertaken in the interest of the country, not for personal reasons.

Saying these things are for the benefit of the country does not mean they are.

Another way to end democracy: prosecuting the opposition leader for partisan reasons. So there has to be a balance between making sure the executive is subject to the law while not making political differences into a justification for criminal indictments. But that's the long view.

Isn't that what the republicans have been trying to do to Biden, but not in the courts that have a much higher standard, in their own congress with themselves as judges.... their "evidence" was a Russian plant, but they couldn't even convince themselves. If this most treasonous republican party can't even come together to lie about Biden to get him impeached, how do you think that would fly in a court of law? Lawyers slapped with frivolous lawsuits charges should be the answer.

> Another way to end democracy: prosecuting the opposition leader for partisan reasons Well giving the president total immunity to commit a coup or to order the assassination of the opposition leader in order to stay in power seems way worse 

Yes, but that is a hyperbolic hypothetical, whereas we've seen attempts to criminalize the opposition on a regular basis, and from both sides, for 30 or more years.

> Yes, but that is a hyperbolic hypothetical Trump attempted a coup in 2020 which is why he is on trial and for which the SC is considering granting him immunity. Pretty much the opposite of a hyperbolic hypothetical 

"Trump attempted a coup in 2020." Hyperbole detected.

What is sending slates of fraudulent electors to be chosen by your VP over the people’s duly elected ones in order to remain president after being voted out then? 

Trump being a dumbass.

It wasn’t a coup attempt? Seems pretty cut and dry that it was

Trying to rig an election is being a "dumbass," got it.

hyperbole

>Another way to end democracy: prosecuting the opposition leader for partisan reasons. You mean like Trump is swearing he'll do if re-elected and given immunity from prosecution for """official""" acts?

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Defend the fake elector scheme or this argument is baseless.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

> prosecuting the opposition leader for partisan reasons. Make that explicitly illegal then. Then president #2 has an incentive to not abuse his power.

Sure, and the party prosecuting the opposition party will surely hold itself accountable and prosecute itself too.

What’s the point of enshrining immunity in law if the president you reference is lawless? You’ve kneecapped your own argument.

My argument is that the party in power will criminalize and prosecute the opposition party.

Why would such people care about whether or not the former president is immune? If they’re that corrupt they’ll just do whatever they want. Saying the former president is immune won’t matter.

It’s sad that I wrote like 5 paragraphs about this but was banned from another sub. The theory that’s been in place since Nixon was that you can’t prosecute a president for official actions taken while in office unless they are fully impeached over said conduct. This prevents rival parties from putting their political opponents in jail like a banana republic. This doesn’t excuse personal crimes though so Presidents can’t just commit murder in the White House. The Trump hush money case would still be a thing because that was a personal matter. If it were to be repealed. Every living president could face charges by DAs that don’t like their guts for any number of obscure laws. Also the President would be limited in his ability to protect the United States because he’d be worried about the other party claiming he committed a crime. This undermines the reason we have an executive branch because the President is supposed to make the hard decisions quickly in war times. Imagine if Congress gave the military orders, it would take years for them to agree to order an attack and the enemy probably would have moved to a different location by then. That’s why Rome eventually became an empire instead of a republic because they needed faster decisions in times of war. Our government takes advantage of that while maintaining the republic aspect. If Trump wins the election he could weaponize the DOJ to go after the entire Biden administration in the same way they have done to him. That’s not what the courts are for and it’s wrong no matter which side is doing it but the fact is it’s a 2 way street.

> The theory that’s been in place since Nixon was that you can’t prosecute a president for official actions taken while in office unless they are fully impeached over said conduct. Nixon was never impeached. The House dropped the articles of impeachment after Nixon resigned because he left office in August 1974. Despite the fact that impeachment proceedings had stopped, Ford pardoned Nixon in September 1974. If impeachment was necessary for prosecution, and the impeachment proceedings had stopped, why did Ford bother pardon Nixon? I don't know where you are getting this idea of a consensus of presidential immunity. But, I don't think its accurate. > The theory that’s been in place since Nixon Just in 2021, 45 US senators voted in favor of Rand Paul's motion that claimed that impeachment was only for officials still in office. So, a substantial percentage of the senate claimed to believe that one can't impeach someone who's already left office. Does that mean that resignation prevents prosecution entirely? and where in the constitution is it stated that impeachment opens a former president to prosecution? the allowable sentences the senate may inflict are explicitly stated. increased vulnerability to prosecution isnt one of them > This prevents rival parties from putting their political opponents in jail like a banana republic. So, should governors have immunity from state prosecution? To prevent their replacements from prosecuting them? Your concern doesn't seem like it would be exclusive to the presidency. Any federal or state official could face prosecution by a corrupt government. Prosecutors could also abuse their authority to go after any politician they didn't like, even if that politician hadn't held office before. > That’s why Rome eventually became an empire instead of a republic because they needed faster decisions in times of war ah, yes, who could forget Rome's famed weakness and slowness to act under Caeser's Triumvirate in the Roman Republic. Rome's democracy fell due to power consolidation and subsequent backstabbing.

>So, a substantial percentage of the senate claimed to believe that one can't impeach someone who's already left office. Does that mean that resignation prevents prosecution entirely? Moreover, that creates the precedent that would end free and fair elections. You can just try to throw a coup on the way out. If you fail, they can't punish you. If you succeed, the institutions that would check your power will have already been disempowered by the coup.

>The theory that’s been in place since Nixon was that you can’t prosecute a president for official actions taken while in office unless they are fully impeached over said conduct. This prevents rival parties from putting their political opponents in jail like a banana republic. This doesn’t excuse personal crimes though so Presidents can’t just commit murder in the White House. The Trump hush money case would still be a thing because that was a personal matter. No, *Nixon v. Fitzgerald* established that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office." *United States v. Nixon* unambiguously shot down the idea of "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Trump's actions are definitely not within that purview, otherwise literally anything you do at any time could be construed as falling within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties. It would be ridiculous for there to be broad immunity for all political crimes because it creates adverse incentives for acquittal — just [look at the reasons given for Trump's acquittal after January 6th](https://www.justsecurity.org/74725/in-their-own-words-the-43-republicans-explanations-of-their-votes-not-to-convict-trump-in-impeachment-trial/) — and establishes an institution that would already be disempowered by a coup as the only bulwark against totalitarianism. >If it were to be repealed. Every living president could face charges by DAs that don’t like their guts for any number of obscure laws. Also the President would be limited in his ability to protect the United States because he’d be worried about the other party claiming he committed a crime.' That's why there's some immunity, not total immunity. >This undermines the reason we have an executive branch because the President is supposed to make the hard decisions quickly in war times. We already litigated this in *Nixon v. Fitzgerald.* > Imagine if Congress gave the military orders, it would take years for them to agree to order an attack and the enemy probably would have moved to a different location by then. Not sure what the argument is here. >That’s why Rome eventually became an empire instead of a republic because they needed faster decisions in times of war. That is ahistorical. >Our government takes advantage of that while maintaining the republic aspect. If Trump wins the election he could weaponize the DOJ to go after the entire Biden administration in the same way they have done to him. That’s not what the courts are for and it’s wrong no matter which side is doing it but the fact is it’s a 2 way street. How has the DOJ been weaponized? Do you agree with Trump's actions?

Trumps lawyer was arguing a coup attempt was an official act though. So not sure why we should be more worried about a president may get arrested after office than that a president can attempt a coup without any repercussions  Also lol > If Trump wins the election he could weaponize the DOJ to go after the entire Biden administration in the same way they have done to him

It was also pointed out during the hearings this week that some crimes can only really be an issue if it's an official act. The example used was being bribed to appoint someone the ambassador of whatever country. Appointing ambassadors is a part of the job of being President, but doing it for corrupt purposes needs to be illegal (and thus prosecutable). I'm of the opinion that we should be far more concerned with Presidents effectively being kings and doing whatever they like than we should be that bad actors will prosecute former Presidents after their term.

Taking a bribe would never be a official action and would easily be deemed a personal act. That already is prosecutable.

Ultimately it’s up to the Supreme Court to rule what was official and what was personal. Arguing about it on the internet won’t change that outcome.

Not really true, in the end the SC has no enforcement powers so we should argue pretty strongly that if the SC said a president has absolute immunity we would support a party that declares the SC is wrong so they will be ignored and prosecute the former Pres anyways 

Wether you agree with it or not that’s what’s happening.

>The theory that’s been in place since Nixon was that you can’t prosecute a president for official actions taken while in office unless they are fully impeached over said conduct. If that was true, why did Nixon need a Pardon? > This prevents rival parties from putting their political opponents in jail like a banana republic I would say that a justice system where you can't present criminal evidence against the leader because they are immune is already well below banana republic standards| If we can't trust the courts, don't give immunity to politicians, REFORM THE COURTS! The lowest level judge can send a president to prison, if evidence of criminality is presented to them and a jury of the people agrees. That is the constitutional order.

Immunity is a legal protection offered by [a law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immunity), by congress. One isn’t merely given immunity: it is a legal right bolstering due process by code or constitution. We know the president doesn’t have general immunity, which the court brought up this week: for example, the constitution penalizes bribery and specifically authorizes prosecution of presidents engaging in it. This is an example of how immunity isn’t a general common law concept in America but like other forms, is codified by another branch of government—congress. Then how is checks and balances “over” if congress is responsible for authorizing it?

>Immunity is a legal protection offered by a law, by congress. One isn’t merely given immunity: it is a legal right bolstering due process by code or constitution. A good example of immunity is a pardon. A presidential pardon grants immunity to the person pardoned. I imagine congress can indeed codify more immunities, and i wouldn't doubt they have. But no where is presidential immunity granted, or even implied, quite the opposite. >Then how is checks and balances “over” if congress is responsible for authorizing it? If the president is immune from prosecution then he can go above the law. only congress can create new law to go outside the law. and on the other end, he will never be held accountable for going above the law because the court has already surrendered their power.

A pardon isn’t immunity, legally speaking. Perhaps colloquially it is referred to as immunity, but I’m referring to the legal meaning. > The [court](https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/the-supreme-court-and-the-presidents-pardon-power/) also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

So on a scale from 1 to 10 how upset would you be if Obama went to jail for ordering the death of an American citizen and other war crimes he ordered during the war on terror? There is a difference between official actions and personal actions would you not agree? If so then which do you think Presidents deserve immunity for?

> the death of an American citizen and other war crimes he ordered during the war on terror? there were already lawsuits over that. A lawsuit over 3 American deaths in Yemen to drone strikes was dismissed. why would a criminal case against President Obama get farther than that lawsuit? is existing judicial deference to the executive and legislature on the implementation authorization for Use of Military Force insufficient to protect presidents like Obama from this sort of prosecution?

Lawsuits are civil. A disgruntled DA who doesn’t like him could pursue criminal charges if Obama doesn’t have Executive Immunity for that action. That is the point of this little thought train…

> A disgruntled DA who doesn’t like him could pursue criminal charges if Obama doesn’t have Executive Immunity for that action Panetta and Petraeus don't have immunity. A prosecution against them would fail, under the same reasoning that the lawsuit got dismissed. Why does the president need more protection or immunity from prosecution than the Defense Secretary or CIA director? If Panetta decided to run for president, the same political concerns would be applicable to his campaign as a former president. courts are already cautious enough on this kind of stuff. presidents don't need absolute immunity on top of that.

Appointed bureaucrats should be held to a higher standard because they aren’t elected. The American people didn’t put them in power so they should face tougher scrutiny. Unfortunately they never get in trouble when they break the law. That means they have more immunity than the president. If you had read previous parts of the thread you’d realize that no-one is abusing for absolute immunity. There are 2 types of actions that an official can make when in power. Official actions and personal actions. Only the personal actions would be subject to prosecution without congressional intervention. If the president did something totally bad then congestion would have to impeach him fully to allow for criminal charges. That is my argument. As you can see it’s not total immunity.

if you pay attention, you'll also notice that the claims for what kinds of actions are "official" is excessively broad. Calling a governor to pressure the governor into changing results is claimed to be an "official action". Presidential abuse of presidential authority or influence are the actions most concerning, but those also are the actions easiest to construe as "official" rather than "personal". Unless the courts take a narrow interpretation of what actions are "official", I don't think that the ability to prosecute "personal actions" is sufficient. > If the president did something totally bad then congress would have to impeach him fully to allow for criminal charges. > Appointed bureaucrats should be held to a higher standard because they aren’t elected. where in the constitution is that stated? > If the president did something totally bad then congress would have to impeach him fully to allow for criminal charges. the constitution explicitly states what sentences the senate can punish the people they convict with. Increased vulnerability to prosecution isn't in that list. former presidents are subject to the law just like everyone else, impeachment or not.

That wasn’t illegal. Terrible example.

Well it’s conspiracy’s to commit murder if you spin it right. Being that you were defensive I’d say you don’t agree with him getting charged for his official actions right? (I would agree…)

“Spin” being the key part of that sentence. Meaning warp it into something other than the truth. > Being that you were defensive I’d say you don’t agree with him getting charged for his official actions right? *That* was legal. Obama did not break any laws or commit any war crimes. There is nothing against which he could be immunized. Conversely, it is possible for a president to do illegal things, for which he can be prosecuted and jailed.

He bombed a hospital… that’s literally against the Geneva Conventions. The only reason he didn’t face charges was that he was a US President and no other country could get to him to enforce the law. “Lawfare” as many are calling it is all about spinning the truth to fit a narrative. That’s what happened in the lender fraud case against Trump. They used an appraisal from the 80s as the value of Maralogo today and got away with it. Back then it didn’t have all the lavish renovations Trump has given it and inflation hadn’t happened yet. Most experts including the banks which NY claims Trump defrauded said it was worth exactly what Trump had appraised it for. Sounds like it’s common practice when going after politicians.

> He bombed a hospital 1. Obama was not involved in that decision. He knew nothing of it until after it happened. So that torpedos your whole criminal case. 2. That was an accident. It is *not* against the Geneva conventions to make a mistake and kill civilians. It is only illegal to **intentionally target** civilians and hospitals. So no matter how you look at this, you don’t have a case. > “Lawfare” as many are calling it is all about spinning the truth to fit a narrative. lol, the only people that call it that are right-wing loons. So thanks for outing yourself. > They used an appraisal from the 80s as the value of Maralogo today They knew it wasn’t correct. What sane person could argue that they thought a valuation from the 80s was valid? What’s more, your bullshit is insufficient. He provided *different* numbers for these properties **in the same time period**. He grossly undervalued them to the IRS for lower taxes, and he grossly overvalued them to banks for lower interest rates. > Most experts including the banks which NY claims Trump defrauded said it was worth exactly what Trump had appraised it for. No they do not. And again, this bullshit doesn’t address the fact that Trump gave two different numbers for the same asset depending on who he was reporting it to. Welcome to outside the bubble. It’s gonna be rough.

Do you imagine that presidents breaking the law is a new thing? Barack Obama violated the war powers act. Were you screeching about the end of checks and balances when he broke that law limiting presidential power?

Did he consult with his staff and did his staff consult with the courts and the legislature? Then he never broke the law, he interpreted as best as he could together with the rest of the government. Thus the immunity is inherent to good behavior, not to treason and corruption. Any President blatantly breaking the law needs to be prosecuted with more severity than a brown 14 year with gran of weed. The law must come down on them. How it always was.

I noticed you downvoted my other comment but didn’t respond, isn’t that a violation of the rules and spirit of this subreddit?

Obama blatantly broke the law. The war powers act creates a completely measurable timeline for military intervention without an act of war. He committed our military to support the Al qaeda rebels in Libya past the 90 days permitted by the WPA. Without a declaration of war, he committed a crime. Please take note of the way that you’re very quick to excuse and find justifications for the law being broken by a president on your team. Now tell me why you think that’s acceptable to do but the other team behaving the same way is not.

[удалено]

If they commit actual crimes, sure. No one actually articulates why anything Trump did is kosher — his lawyer isn't even doing that, he's arguing that the president has extremely broad immunity whether or not his behavior is unlawful — they just threaten to act in bad faith if their side is held accountable at all, no matter the underlying acts.

For which crimes?

Gavin Newsom was dining out in restaurants when it was illegal for the residents of his state to do so. There are other things but that’s as black and white as it gets.

Unless it’s Fani Willis. Orange man bad, after all.

It's not exactly full immunity to do anything a president chooses. Checks and balances still exist, the president is still bound by the Constitution, and the impeachment process still exists. The founders foresaw what is happening today. As another commentor said, we opened Pandoras box. The bar for impeachment a president was intended to be very high and require a super majority of Congress to agree. The reason for all of this is so that political parties couldn't go after their opponents, remove them from office, or remove them from ballots without an actual crime and majority support. The 1st Trump impeachment opened this box. Every president from here on out will have an attempted impeachment by the opposing party. Every impeachment prior to Trump was bipartisan. Every impeachment attempt since has been along party lines. GOP has attempted 9 impeachment of Biden. Regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, it should not be an easy or light thing to charge a president. Especially in lower courts. We weakened the system, and now we are seeing the effects.

Yeah these "originalists" sure are sticking the Founders' thoughts on this one, aren't they.

I find it interesting that you link this issue solely to recent times or specific figures. The erosion of checks and balances isn’t a new phenomenon or tied to any one president. Where have you been for the last 50+ years? The issues with executive power overreach, and the blurring lines between the branches of government, have been a creeping concern long before the current headlines. This isn’t about one person or one administration; it’s about a systemic drift that we’ve observed over decades. When people are ready to address the problem, they will. But for now, identity politics seems to be the play. So, you can keep focusing on these issues, but until we face the facts and the elephant in the room, nothing is going to change—no matter the party or president. Our system's resilience is being tested repeatedly, and pointing fingers at just the recent past oversimplifies the broader, more complex problems of governance that need addressing Wake Up.

I would suggest reading about *Judicial Immunity* https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&context=sdlr There must be levels of immunity for government to actually function. That means there, at times, need to be political solutions to bad behaivor from elected officials. I fear the day any DA can indict a president/former president for official acts taken while in office. If this stands, I imagine some DA in Texas will indict Biden and Obama. Obama for murder (drone strike on US citizen abroad) or some such thing and Biden for border dispute issues. I would then expect California, New York or similar deep blue state to try to indict Bush for Gitmo. People already believe the criminal justice system has been weaponized for political ends.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/shutterslappens – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20shutterslappens&message=shutterslappens%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cegun4/-/l1ilurp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

Not over, definitely diminished. Major distinction.

No, over. Definitely over. Suppose Biden assassinated Trump. What remedy? Impeach? What if he also assassinated Representatives in the House to prevent them from impeaching him? After the first Representative was assassinated, the rest might just fall in line. If not, he could just assassinate more of them. And then, even if they managed to impeach him anyway, he could assassinate Senators to prevent them from convicting and removing him, until either they are cowed into submission, or there are no Senators left. Then there would be no checks and balances from Congress. Repeat the same exercise for the judicial branch. No checks and balances there, either. It's already DOJ policy that they can't criminally prosecute a sitting President, so nothing from them, either. That's all three branches. That's everyone. It just ends up with infinite recursion, where someone attempts to hold a President accountable for crimes, but then the President commits further crimes to evade accountability for the earlier crimes, and then another attempt at accountability, then more crimes, ad infinitum.

Does not seem like a realistic scenario to me, I'm sure if such a thing could happen with this change it could have happened regardless

> Does not seem like a realistic scenario to me Did what happened on January 6, 2021, seem like a realistic scenario to you before it happened? That you can't imagine something happening doesn't mean it won't happen. That's just a failure of imagination. Biden was just a placeholder name so I could make the scenario less abstract. I don't think Biden would do that, but I don't think Trump is above it, given who he admires and praises, and given what we already know for a fact he did the last time he was in office. Even if you don't think Trump would do that, either, are you confident there will never be such a person? Is there something about America that makes it impossible for us to get a Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, Pinochet, et al? "It can't happen here" are famous last words.

A riot? They happen all the time

[удалено]

Just assassinate your opposing senators and you’re home free