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 15 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 14 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 13 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 12 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 14 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.