The people harmed here were the US public and they are just going to continue to be harmed. The right answer is people go to jail. Until people start going to jail, being disbarred, etc, this will keep happening. This isn't a remedy. This is continuing the cycle.

▲

refurb 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You want to put politicians I. Jail when the courts find their action violated laws?

Thats pretty much every President in the last century.

They all lose court cases.

▲

samus 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They probably should have been. But the presidential system putting de-facto unchecked power into the president is just asking for such abuses to happen. Almost by design one might think.

	▲	refurb 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not unchecked power. The very fact the courts overturned it proof the power is checked.

▲

AvAn12 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Trump is the only one convicted of felonies and found liable for civil wrongdoing.

No other president violated laws (and please don’t start with Monica Lewinsky or that time Obama wore a tan suit…)

▲

loeg 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People? Trump is the only actor here who deserves punishment for these illegal tariffs, but there is no grounds to jail a sitting president.

▲

pstuart 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Ultimately yes. But every one of his enablers is complicit and should be tried if we are ever able to extricate ourselves from this mess.

▲

nothrabannosir 11 hours ago | parent [-]

If the lesson by now isn’t “be careful wishing for powers you don’t want the other side to use against you” then I don’t know what will drive that home…

▲

watwut 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one.

As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.

▲

nothrabannosir 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Which actual law should send them to jail?

The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake.

Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail.

Guess what will happen? The administration after that will send your politicians to jail. And the bananificiation of the US will be complete.

If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Raise the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much!

The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies.

Edit: Let me rephrase: rather than try and find a single law by which to hang the executive , of which I’m sure there are a million, my impression is that for every one of them there’s a commensurate law which exonerates them. Congress keeps protecting the president. Congress is the most powerful of the three branches, by design . To genuinely see someone going to jail, From The executive branch , Congress needs to make a clear, unequivocal, statement.

	▲	bdangubic an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Trammel up the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies. So much good will here but oh so misguided. First of all, the judicial branch is not doing its job and hasn't done so in quite some time. The SCOTUS in particular is just an extension of a political party now and not judicial branch in any way. You give me a case and 99% of Americans will tell you exactly how each judge on SCOTUS will rule, 99% of the time. This is not "judicial branch is the only one left doing its job" - they are currently (not a recent thing though but now it has become comical) just an extension of a political party, nothing more and are absolutely not doing any job at all other then rubber-stamping shit based on their political dogma. The "get Congress to create actual laws he'd be breaking" is even more comical. You think they can write laws that clearly state where the power of the Presidency stops in some sense and then legal ramifications of going over that power? C'mon mate...
	▲	watwut 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		1.) Supreme court literally decided that Trump can not commit crime while in the office. Full stop. 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. 3.) This administration ignores the courts. > If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, They actually did made those laws. Supreme court decided to either rewrite those law or that they simply dont matter. > The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. Not the supreme court.

▲

buzzerbetrayed 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

donkeybeer 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Why not? I have no idea why people were thinking corporations are overpowered when twitter banned trump. I thought it was great and showed nobody is above the law/tos. Likewise if the president has done crimes, he should pay the time.

▲

TheDong 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately, it has been ruled that the president is immune to legal prosecution on this matter, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

> the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview

It turns out that "checks and balances" meant "the president is unchecked and unbalanced".

▲

bdangubic 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. The checks and balances wasn’t meant to setup a system where Presidents can be sent to prison but to prevent “crimes” (for the lack of a better word) to happen to begin with. Of course our current “party over Country” system has practically killed any semblance of checks and balances…

▲

cthalupa 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs.

That sounds a lot like a king.

Last I checked, our founders were pretty against the whole king thing.

I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.

▲

bdangubic 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.

They said or they haven’t said it, no? If they did we’d have paper trail.

	▲	salawat 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Federalist Papers. Go read them. Anti-Federalist Papers too. At the end of the day, we're still trying to hash out the same old song.

▲

donkeybeer 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does Trump want to be Mussolinied? It should always be legal to jail and hang the head of state, otherwise the head of state risks going by a much funnier way. Its not about politics, it's simple game theory.

▲

ekjhgkejhgk a day ago | parent | prev [-]

By "people go to jail" you mean Trump, right? Right?