The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?

The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?

  • @MindSkipperBro12
    1•11 months ago

    I don’t know, we always held presidents above the law. See FDR and tossing the Japanese Americans into camps, Nixon and Watergate, Reagan with the Iran-Contra deal, Bill Clinton and whatever sex scandals have been attributed to him, George Bush and lying about Iraq, and now Trump with 1/6.

    Saying they aren’t would be going against precedent. We would really have to set up a second Constitutional Convention if we really want to overhaul the branches of government.

    • CoffeeAddictOP
      1•11 months ago

      The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he put forward.

      I am not defending the crimes of past Presidents as I do not think they are defensible. (Of those listed, the internment camps make me especially sick).

      But, I do think this case is novel because none of those presidents were actually indicted on their crimes and therefore never actually set a legal precedent as to whether they could abuse the Office of the President to skirt the law.

      From the way I see it, it was always an ambiguous gray area and this case will change that. It will be the official, legal precedent.

      The President will always have to make tough decisions, and some of them to be terrible. It is my opinion though that they should not be above the law.