Surprise, President-elect doesn't want criminal investigations of a sitting President

[Eacaraxe]

Latest from the "I tried to warn y'all" deck,

Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, preferring unity

Biden has told aides that he's concerned that investigations would divide the country but that he would leave decisions up to an independent Justice Department.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Iron]

I imagine this would be quoted when Trump wins and he lets Biden get extradited to Ukraine for corruption charges.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Is anyone surprised by this? Was there a single person (on this forum at least) that expected Biden to go after Trump?

Trump acts the way he does in large part because he believes he won't ever be held meaningfully accountable for his actions, and he's not wrong to think so.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Getting a lot of use out of that picture.

Anyway, can't wait to hear how this is a ploy to lull them into a false sense of security before Biden STRIKES or whatever.

 

[dreng3]

I honestly don't expect Biden to go directly after Trump, let the various states press charges. If Biden pushes hard for Trump to be prosecuted it'll be seen as either vindictive or as a hit-job, much less so if the states are the ones prosecuting.

I do however want the coming administration to deal with the various examples of corruption and I hope that a lot of the positions that have only been filled with acting directors are dealt with as swiftly and severely as possible.

 

[Tireseas]

Literally the second line:

Biden has told aides that he's concerned that investigations would divide the country but that he would leave decisions up to an independent Justice Department.

You know, what's supposed to happen.

 

[Adam Jensen]

1. It's not up to him.
2. Endorsement of a prosecution by someone in his position can taint the entire thing. It's easy to construct an argument for political persecution.
3. State-level prosecutions are enough to bury Trump at this point. Prosecutions for his crimes in NYC alone can take everything from him.

 

[Agema]

I don't think there's a problem here.

What Biden's saying is that he's not going to direct the Justice Dept. to specifically root around for reasons to go after Trump, but that if anything relevant and appropriate turns up, it can and will prosecute as appropriate. This is, surely, the way it's supposed to work. We cannot possibly have spent years complaining about Trump and Barr overtly subverting the DoJ for political ends only to clap should Biden do it.

 

[Eacaraxe]

If Biden pushes hard for Trump to be prosecuted it'll be seen as either vindictive or as a hit-job, much less so if the states are the ones prosecuting.

That's not what's at play, here. What's at play is setting a precedent that a President could be held criminally liable for actions committed while in office, after leaving office. No sitting President is ever going to willingly set that precedent, and in fact, they're going to actively resist it because the precedent alone means a president sits in office with Damocles' sword hanging over their head (as they damn well ought). If Trump's liable for shit he did in office, the rule of law dictates Biden and subsequent presidents become potentially liable four, eight, or more years down the road.

Case in point, as the article points out, when the Obama administration outright refused to investigate Bush administration officials and Bush for malfeasances committed whilst in office. And, by incredible coincidence, when the tough-talking Trump administration refused to do the same to the Obama administration, even if only as a partisan ploy for which the Trump administration later proved itself eminently capable and willing.

Nixon was a shot across the bow to future presidential administrations that the rule of law does indeed apply to chief executives and their administrations, and even then, Ford pardoned Nixon. Between the S&L crisis and Iran-Contra, great lengths were taken during the Reagan administration to set precedents that elected executives and appointed officials could and would not be subject to prosecution for acts committed in office, and the Bush II administration worked tirelessly to insulate itself from investigation through endless appeals to need for secrecy and national security. No sitting president or president-elect is going to commit to reversing the precedents set between those two administrations post-Nixon.

You know, what's supposed to happen.

DoJ's aren't actually independent, you know that, right? Those are presidential appointees and inherently political, and presidential appointees are, unsurprisingly, going to act in accordance to their appointor's agenda. That's how and why they get the damned appointment in the first place. If Biden says he doesn't want Trump investigated, the "independent" DoJ isn't going to investigate Trump, because Biden's appointees are going to "independently" do what Biden wants and doesn't want because that's what they were appointed to do.

Biden's commentary is political doublespeak, to dodge accountability and enable defenders to rationalize and shift blame just as you're doing now. I strongly suspect you already know this.

 

[dreng3]

That's not what's at play, here. What's at play is setting a precedent that a President could be held criminally liable for actions committed while in office, after leaving office. No sitting President is ever going to willingly set that precedent, and in fact, they're going to actively resist it. Case in point, as the article points out, when the Obama administration outright refused to investigate Bush administration officials and Bush for malfeasances committed whilst in office.

And, by incredible coincidence, when the tough-talking Trump administration refused to do the same to the Obama administration, even if only as a partisan ploy for which the Trump administration later proved itself eminently capable and willing.

I agree, this is, at least to some extent, about precedent. But I also think that precedent is a dangerous thing, the president of the U.S. will have to make many decision based on a lot of different data, and not always the most reliable data.
Of course I find it detestable that Bush and his administration was never punished for the lies and the illegal war, that should've never been the case. But it is also a slippery slope, much as I hate the idea.

In think the Trump administration not pushing for charges is entirely different, those goons aren't competent enough to make a sound argument and anything that could really be used as basis for a case went out the window shortly after Hillary lost the election.

I honestly think that playing it safe by waiting a year or two before pushing for anything against Trump and his people is the safe move, get an idea how the people would react, don't fan the flames, that sort of thing.

 

[Worgen]

I agree, this is, at least to some extent, about precedent. But I also think that precedent is a dangerous thing, the president of the U.S. will have to make many decision based on a lot of different data, and not always the most reliable data.
Of course I find it detestable that Bush and his administration was never punished for the lies and the illegal war, that should've never been the case. But it is also a slippery slope, much as I hate the idea.

In think the Trump administration not pushing for charges is entirely different, those goons aren't competent enough to make a sound argument and anything that could really be used as basis for a case went out the window shortly after Hillary lost the election.

I honestly think that playing it safe by waiting a year or two before pushing for anything against Trump and his people is the safe move, get an idea how the people would react, don't fan the flames, that sort of thing.

Not to mention that there is so much more shit that Biden will have to take care of, so having part of his administration going after trump would take resources away from that. Not to mention that trump might try and do that whole pardon himself thing before he gets kicked out if he thinks he might be prosecuted and considering the conservatives have a very strong majority in the court, they might be willing to allow it.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I agree, this is, at least to some extent, about precedent. But I also think that precedent is a dangerous thing, the president of the U.S. will have to make many decision based on a lot of different data, and not always the most reliable data.

In many ways, it parallels ongoing debate about the necessity or propriety of the War Powers Act, and the slippage of war powers away from Congress and towards the presidency beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, accelerating under Clinton, and reaching its peak with the 2001 "war on terror" AUMF. No sitting president, Democrat or Republican, is going to concede war powers no matter how slight back to Congress. Between both Obama and Trump administrations, there was clear consensus on the issue, with the Obama administration outright ignoring the War Powers Act for interventions in Libya and Syria, and the Trump administration vetoing invocations of the War Powers Act for Yemen and Iran.

The precise justification for that being, from a presidential administration's point of view, what you just said: presidential administrations need to be able to make snap judgments based on potentially incomplete information in response to emergent military threats, on time frames or scales that preclude convening Congress. The big one being, "the US can't wait on Congress if the nukes are already in the air".

The issue isn't partisan, it's a matter of naked self-interest for sitting presidential administrations. Presidential administrations are not going to voluntarily act against their own self-interest, and in this particular case, the matter of self-interest is whether presidential administrations are to be held liable for criminal acts committed in office. It's qualified immunity, except in this case, the person for whom qualified immunity applies is the one with the nuclear football.

 

[dreng3]

Not to mention that there is so much more shit that Biden will have to take care of, so having part of his administration going after trump would take resources away from that. Not to mention that trump might try and do that whole pardon himself thing before he gets kicked out if he thinks he might be prosecuted and considering the conservatives have a very strong majority in the court, they might be willing to allow it.

I honestly view the failure to remove Nixon from office as one of the greatest failings in U.S. politics, there should be an established and accepted way to sanction a president. And doing so through impeachment would make it quite clear that there was a greater failing, that way the courts would have an implicit permission to step forward and deal with the ex-president. Sadly impeachment is a useless tool.

 

[dreng3]

In many ways, it parallels ongoing debate about the necessity or propriety of the War Powers Act, and the slippage of war powers away from Congress and towards the presidency beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, accelerating under Clinton, and reaching its peak with the 2001 "war on terror" AUMF. No sitting president, Democrat or Republican, is going to concede war powers no matter how slight back to Congress. Between both Obama and Trump administrations, there was clear consensus on the issue, with the Obama administration outright ignoring the War Powers Act for interventions in Libya and Syria, and the Trump administration vetoing invocations of the War Powers Act for Yemen and Iran.

The precise justification for that being, from a presidential administration's point of view, what you just said: presidential administrations need to be able to make snap judgments based on potentially incomplete information in response to emergent military threats, on time frames or scales that preclude convening Congress. The big one being, "the US can't wait on Congress if the nukes are already in the air".

The issue isn't partisan, it's a matter of naked self-interest for sitting presidential administrations. Presidential administrations are not going to voluntarily act against their own self-interest, and in this particular case, the matter of self-interest is whether presidential administrations are to be held liable for criminal acts committed in office.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the war powers act or the idea that a president can't be punished for acts committed as president if it wasn't for the american people being so utterly incapable of choosing reasonable and well-functioning leaders.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I honestly don't expect Biden to go directly after Trump, let the various states press charges. If Biden pushes hard for Trump to be prosecuted it'll be seen as either vindictive or as a hit-job, much less so if the states are the ones prosecuting.

Why shouldn't he go after a "literal neo-nazi and reincarnation of Hitler and the biggest threat to all of humanity"? Seems odd that after all that talk about how Trump is the source of all evil that he, or more accurately, the party, would then back off.

 

[Worgen]

I honestly view the failure to remove Nixon from office as one of the greatest failings in U.S. politics, there should be an established and accepted way to sanction a president. And doing so through impeachment would make it quite clear that there was a greater failing, that way the courts would have an implicit permission to step forward and deal with the ex-president. Sadly impeachment is a useless tool.

He left before he could be removed. Its not a useless tool, but it is hampered by party loyalty but I mean, what else could we do? Can you come up with anything better then this process?

 

[immortalfrieza]

That's not what's at play, here. What's at play is setting a precedent that a President could be held criminally liable for actions committed while in office, after leaving office. No sitting President is ever going to willingly set that precedent, and in fact, they're going to actively resist it because the precedent alone means a president sits in office with Damocles' sword hanging over their head (as they damn well ought). If Trump's liable for shit he did in office, the rule of law dictates Biden and subsequent presidents become potentially liable four, eight, or more years down the road.

Case in point, as the article points out, when the Obama administration outright refused to investigate Bush administration officials and Bush for malfeasances committed whilst in office. And, by incredible coincidence, when the tough-talking Trump administration refused to do the same to the Obama administration, even if only as a partisan ploy for which the Trump administration later proved itself eminently capable and willing.

Nixon was a shot across the bow to future presidential administrations that the rule of law does indeed apply to chief executives and their administrations, and even then, Ford pardoned Nixon. Between the S&L crisis and Iran-Contra, great lengths were taken during the Reagan administration to set precedents that elected executives and appointed officials could and would not be subject to prosecution for acts committed in office, and the Bush II administration worked tirelessly to insulate itself from investigation through endless appeals to need for secrecy and national security. No sitting president or president-elect is going to commit to reversing the precedents set between those two administrations post-Nixon.


DoJ's aren't actually independent, you know that, right? Those are presidential appointees and inherently political, and presidential appointees are, unsurprisingly, going to act in accordance to their appointor's agenda. That's how and why they get the damned appointment in the first place. If Biden says he doesn't want Trump investigated, the "independent" DoJ isn't going to investigate Trump, because Biden's appointees are going to "independently" do what Biden wants and doesn't want because that's what they were appointed to do.

Biden's commentary is political doublespeak, to dodge accountability and enable defenders to rationalize and shift blame just as you're doing now. I strongly suspect you already know this.

This is what happens when 3 things that should never occur happen:

1. The people who are supposed to be regulated and held accountable for their actions are the ones who decide whether they themselves can be regulated and held accountable for their actions.

2. Those who are supposed to be the ones who regulate and hold accountable people like the former are under the near total control of those very people.

3. The ones who regulate and hold accountable others are completely incapable of being unbiased like they should be.

if a sitting President (or any politician for that matter) commits criminal acts while in office it shouldn't matter that they're the sitting President, they should still be brought up on charges and prosecuted regardless. If there's an unproven accusation it should be investigated and proven true or false just like with any other crime and defendant in U.S. law.

Sadly, how it should be is and has never been how the world actually works.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Not to mention that there is so much more shit that Biden will have to take care of, so having part of his administration going after trump would take resources away from that.

What resources? This is why we have an entire executive department dedicated to this exact function. This is literally the DoJ's job, that's what "the resources" are there for in the first place.

I honestly view the failure to remove Nixon from office as one of the greatest failings in U.S. politics, there should be an established and accepted way to sanction a president. And doing so through impeachment would make it quite clear that there was a greater failing, that way the courts would have an implicit permission to step forward and deal with the ex-president. Sadly impeachment is a useless tool.

That's a bit of an oversimplification of what happened. Articles of impeachment had already been drawn against Nixon, and after SCOTUS ordered the Nixon administration to comply with the Congressional subpoena and remand the Watergate tapes, impeachment and removal from office was an absolute certainty. Goldwater, Scott, and Rhodes met with Nixon personally the night before his resignation, and all but told him outright to resign rather than fight the impeachment and trial. Ford's pardon was to prevent indictment as a private citizen, impeachment and his resignation had no impact on that save that Ford was in office to pardon him.

 

[Revnak]

I’d like to point out that while I absolutely believe in the importance of hanging a sword of Damocles over every authority, the threat of prosecution of crimes committed in office is technically what led to Caesar choosing civil war over retirement. I’m willing to humor the argument that giving our tyrants a way out is the only way to prevent them from escalating their tyrannies, the issue is that the blanket lack of consequence is a similar accelerant.

Edit: while I’ve absolute faith Biden will fail miserably and will act in the cynical way described throughout this thread, the actual best political maneuver for everyone would be to convince Trump he won’t prosecute him then do so anyway once Trump no longer has executive authority.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I’d like to point out that while I absolutely believe in the importance of hanging a sword of Damocles over every authority, the threat of prosecution of crimes committed in office is technically what led to Caesar choosing civil war over retirement. I’m willing to humor the argument that giving our tyrants a way out is the only way to prevent them from escalating their tyrannies, the issue is that the blanket lack of consequence is a similar accelerant.

There is a difference here in that Caesar was not libel for prosecution so long as he was in office as a rule. Maybe I'm unaware of a law but I'm pretty sure a president does not have such an official law protecting them.