Well, not exactly what he said. He said the effects on the country of a post-presidential prosecution should be considered.
“Yes, I think there is a potential cost to the nation by putting on trial a former president, and that ought to at least be a part of the calculus that goes into the determination that has to be made by the next attorney general,” Holder said.
Bullshit.
Has he gone completely insane? And how would we know? There is that.
“Vote him out” loses credence with a dictator. If Trump succeeds in consolidating his power along those lines, all the 2020 Dems are going to have to face this. Otherwise they (and we) will become Ritualists.:
People who engage in symbolic actions with little practical meaning.
One other thing: Engaged and aggressive counter-actions against tyrants occur when the population either senses things are going better or hope for this in the very near future.
These “engaged and aggressive counter-actions” do not occur with demoralized people…and cynics are the cousins of the demoralized.
OT one other thing. I am an historian and I look at timelines. Since the election of 2018 and accelerating after Barr’s emergence on the scene, the Trump scandals have increased, the lawlessness of Trump’s regime has increased. the acquiescence of the GOP has increased, along with the pace.
If this were an ordinary presidency, Trump’s position would be vastly weaker than a year ago.
But this is not a presidency. This is a regime.
until this whole presidential powers shit goes to court and results in a ruling…Jay Sekulow will continue to get away with this shit…
And if he loses in 2020 he won’t step down. And nobody can make him step down because he’s president. This is where this is all going.
“would allow a single prosecutor to circumvent the Constitution’s specific rules for impeachment,”
This, and the lawsuit arguing that Dems are ambiguous about impeachment sound like an effort to challenge Dems to formally launch impeachment. Rethugs are fully prepared to fight against impeachment and even seem to be asking for it. I’d be cautious if I were the Dem leader.
And Holder isn’t wrong there.
If Trump is prosecuted after he leaves office that is gonna be a big deal and the GOP is gonna lose their collective minds over it and probably look to retaliate when they next swing into power. It’s definitely something to think about, though to my mind it doesn’t outweigh the need to restore our national faith in truth and justice.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in New York, is a broad attack on the efforts by the local prosecutor to investigate Trump while he is in the White House. Trump’s attorneys are positioning the subpoena dispute as a test case that could secure a ruling declaring that all criminal investigations into a sitting president are unconstitutional.
I thought it was resolved under Bill Clinton that the man who is POTUS could in fact be sued?
Focusing, focusing… Either we will or we won’t, according to the courts, be ruled by a dictator who is constitutionally above the law. Or outside the law: an outlaw. There was a time when being outside the law meant one was no longer afforded the protections of the law. IANAL, but are we going there? Really?
I dare any attorney to cite precedent for this bone-headed theory. I am waiting with eager anticipation what future legal fantasies are spun to defend King Merdas’s ass from cooling in a jail cell.
Just for a laugh.
I’m not sure this one ends the same way. Republicans today seem perfectly willing to let this slide. As long as that is the case, this president at least is above the law.
I agree, it is certainly something to consider. But at some point the crimes may very well be so egregious that prosecution would be for the good of the nation. But not a frickin pardon.
Bill Clinton must be snacking himself in the head. “Why didn’t I do that?” “Hey Starr! I got BJ’s and I liked it!” “Go pound salt!”
Justice Kavanaugh: That is correct is unconstitutional to investigate a sitting Republican president, also you cannot investigate a sitting Supreme Court Justices!
I guess Trump’s lawyers read TPM… Called it!
As long as Pelosi insists on shying away from impeachment, these b.s. arguments don’t matter all that much. They are just time wasters to run out the clock.
Unless, Thor forbid, Trump get re-elected.
There is literally no Constitutional support for this argument. It’s bleeding obvious that the authors of the Constitution intended for the Executive to be subject to the laws of this nation as much as everybody else is.
I would support severe sanctions against any counselor whose legal theory rests upon the argument that enforcing the law is “unconstitutional”. It’s self-defeating gibberish.
For a court to permit criminal investigations into a sitting president “would allow a single prosecutor to circumvent the Constitution’s specific rules for impeachment,”
No. Impeachment is entirely about whether an Executive should be removed from office. It has nothing to do with law enforcement. The DoJ got this question wrong when it, on the instructions of a corrupt President, decided that the President could not be the subject of any federal criminal investigation. There is no Constitutional support for any claim that the Executive is immune to any kind of prosecution.
And one thinks such a major thing would have been mentioned.
And then he said:
“But you know, I think looking back, I tend to think that that [pardoning Nixon] was probably the right thing to do,” Holder added.
Yes, you’re correct: “Not exactly what he [Holder] said,” but when Obama and Holder were in a position to prosecute the crimes of Bush and Cheney, they declined. It was a pardon without a formal pardon.
I am not sure whether Holder considers or cares about the “cost to the nation” of having lawless Presidents. Essentially he is agreeing with Nixon that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Whelp, time for Trump to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue
Do you seriously think he pays for ANY of this out of his own pocket? Lol.