Hypothetical Trump Resignation (Poll Not Included)

[Anomalocaris]

Suppose for a brief moment that we live in a fantasy world in which Donald Trump is offered a deal, a la Nixon/Ford.  He agrees to resign in return for either a pardon, or a guarantee of immunity from prosecution once he's out.

Would this be acceptable to most anti-Trump Americans, or would it be more just for him to be forced out and have to face the music for crimes committed while in office?

Boru

Not to me.

Justice is essential but not formulated for the purpose of adequately deterring malfeasance of at this level and of this consequence.    Justice as might have been conceived by framers of the constitution for presidential crimes still presupposed a sense of decency across the mainstream political spectrum and a certain noblis oblige.   Neither of these proved to be the case.

We already proved, not for the first time I might add, the social-political construct that's this country is quite susceptible to the sort of moral irresponsibility and short-sightedness that would put a character like trump into the supreme office.    We also proved the systems of two party and three government branch checks and balance we've taken so long for granted as being adequate security against truly bad governance is in reality no guaranty at all against the damages that can be done by characters like trump.

I don't think these underlying critical weaknesses can even attempted to be addressed in the foreseeable future. 

So the only deterrence against another Trumpian character putting the world at risk is reasonable assurance that such fate as would befall trump, his clan, and his hangers was too terrible for the potential gains he and they were after to have been worth the risk, and future trumps and their minions, looking back upon these fates, would be daunted from beginning to walk down his path.

[AFTT47]

Suppose for a brief moment that we live in a fantasy world in which Donald Trump is offered a deal, a la Nixon/Ford.  He agrees to resign in return for either a pardon, or a guarantee of immunity from prosecution once he's out.

Would this be acceptable to most anti-Trump Americans, or would it be more just for him to be forced out and have to face the music for crimes committed while in office?

Boru

If it happens this will most likely be the terms. I doubt the majority dems will want to have criminal trials against a president. It wouldn't say much for the US system of government or it's people. 

The fact that Trump is President doesn't say much for the US system of government or it's people.

[brewer]

Nixon, with arguably worse crimes, resigned with no guarantees and look what happened.

[Anomalocaris]

Nixon, with arguably worse crimes, resigned with no guarantees and look what happened.

Nixon's crimes are worse than an open invitation to other countries to blackmail American politicians?


There is crimes, and there is treason.

---

If it happens this will most likely be the terms. I doubt the majority dems will want to have criminal trials against a president. It wouldn't say much for the US system of government or it's people. 

The fact that Trump is President doesn't say much for the US system of government or it's people.

Trump is the complete and total end of America as a power on the international stage with unique credibility and admired potential.   The United States probably had not been this un-great since the 1830s.

[EgoDeath]

I'd just love to live in a world where I can commit crimes on the job and only have to worry about being fired.  With a package, ofc.

Would you expect any less? Keep dreaming, Gae.

After all, he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone" and he wouldn't lose any voters. It'll be a surprise if anything at all even comes of this impeachment inquiry.

[mordant]

So the only deterrence against another Trumpian character putting the world at risk is reasonable assurance that such fate as would befall trump, his clan, and his hangers was too terrible for the potential gains he and they were after to have been worth the risk, and future trumps and their minions, looking back upon these fates, would be daunted from beginning to walk down his path.

I agree except for the word "only". I think making an example of him is critical but so are things like:

* Modifying the whistleblower law to prevent the novel legal argument that it doesn't apply to the President's actions because he's not as such part of the IC. Just state in the law that for purposes of the law, the President and the executive branch ARE part of the IC. After all the President can unilaterally declassify anything he wants, how is he not subject to IC rules and regs?

* Requiring all Presidential candidates to be able to obtain a properly vetted top secret clearance before they can even run. That would have filtered out Trump and probably half the other asshats that ran in 2016. In fact all candidates for national office should have to obtain a secret clearance appropriate to their position, in advance.

* A thorough review of existing DOJ procedures and policies in light of this Trump debacle. I would want to see the ridiculous DOJ memo that says you must never indict a sitting President for ANYTHING rescinded. Maybe some greatly watered-down version of it could take its place, something that addresses true nuisance lawsuits and proceedings, but there has GOT to be a credible avenue to indict at least for serious crimes and official malfeasance.

* Passage of a range of laws that remove the assumption of good-faith actors from the system and instead ASSUME malfeasance and corruption. This is rather like taking a public computer system and adding at least basic credentialed access (user id, password). Right now too much law assumes everyone is a person of good faith. This can no longer be assumed, and never really SHOULD have been.

I predict that the resistance to such reforms will be great, because there's a hell of a lot of perfidy beyond gross Trumpism that has been hiding in plain sight all along ... and I don't think the Democrats are immune to it either. I KNOW they aren't.

[Anomalocaris]

So the only deterrence against another Trumpian character putting the world at risk is reasonable assurance that such fate as would befall trump, his clan, and his hangers was too terrible for the potential gains he and they were after to have been worth the risk, and future trumps and their minions, looking back upon these fates, would be daunted from beginning to walk down his path.

I agree except for the word "only". I think making an example of him is critical but so are things like:

* Modifying the whistleblower law to prevent the novel legal argument that it doesn't apply to the President's actions because he's not as such part of the IC. Just state in the law that for purposes of the law, the President and the executive branch ARE part of the IC. After all the President can unilaterally declassify anything he wants, how is he not subject to IC rules and regs?

* Requiring all Presidential candidates to be able to obtain a properly vetted top secret clearance before they can even run. That would have filtered out Trump and probably half the other asshats that ran in 2016. In fact all candidates for national office should have to obtain a secret clearance appropriate to their position, in advance.

* A thorough review of existing DOJ procedures and policies in light of this Trump debacle. I would want to see the ridiculous DOJ memo that says you must never indict a sitting President for ANYTHING rescinded. Maybe some greatly watered-down version of it could take its place, something that addresses true nuisance lawsuits and proceedings, but there has GOT to be a credible avenue to indict at least for serious crimes and official malfeasance.

* Passage of a range of laws that remove the assumption of good-faith actors from the system and instead ASSUME malfeasance and corruption. This is rather like taking a public computer system and adding at least basic credentialed access (user id, password). Right now too much law assumes everyone is a person of good faith. This can no longer be assumed, and never really SHOULD have been.

I predict that the resistance to such reforms will be great, because there's a hell of a lot of perfidy beyond gross Trumpism that has been hiding in plain sight all along ... and I don't think the Democrats are immune to it either. I KNOW they aren't.

The fundamental issue is head of justice department is a presidential appointee.   Your items 1 3 and 4 only deters those president who would otherwise commit no crime from committing a crime.   Any Trumpian character would defeat 1, 3, and 4 without any effort whatsoever.


Item 2 by no means would clearly disqualify trump in 2016, what is more it is a vastly dangerous slope to go down.   It allows the internal and external security apparatus, not the judiciary, to set qualification on who can be president.    Given the evident effort Trump has put into subverting the internal and external security apparatus, it is easy to see how, if 2 becomes a rule, he could influence the security apparatus to disqualify any competitor.

[mordant]

I agree except for the word "only". I think making an example of him is critical but so are things like:

* Modifying the whistleblower law to prevent the novel legal argument that it doesn't apply to the President's actions because he's not as such part of the IC. Just state in the law that for purposes of the law, the President and the executive branch ARE part of the IC. After all the President can unilaterally declassify anything he wants, how is he not subject to IC rules and regs?

* Requiring all Presidential candidates to be able to obtain a properly vetted top secret clearance before they can even run. That would have filtered out Trump and probably half the other asshats that ran in 2016. In fact all candidates for national office should have to obtain a secret clearance appropriate to their position, in advance.

* A thorough review of existing DOJ procedures and policies in light of this Trump debacle. I would want to see the ridiculous DOJ memo that says you must never indict a sitting President for ANYTHING rescinded. Maybe some greatly watered-down version of it could take its place, something that addresses true nuisance lawsuits and proceedings, but there has GOT to be a credible avenue to indict at least for serious crimes and official malfeasance.

* Passage of a range of laws that remove the assumption of good-faith actors from the system and instead ASSUME malfeasance and corruption. This is rather like taking a public computer system and adding at least basic credentialed access (user id, password). Right now too much law assumes everyone is a person of good faith. This can no longer be assumed, and never really SHOULD have been.

I predict that the resistance to such reforms will be great, because there's a hell of a lot of perfidy beyond gross Trumpism that has been hiding in plain sight all along ... and I don't think the Democrats are immune to it either. I KNOW they aren't.

The fundamental issue is head of justice department is a presidential appointee.   Your items 1 3 and 4 only deters those president who would otherwise commit no crime from committing a crime.   Any Trumpian character would defeat 1, 3, and 4 without any effort whatsoever.


Item 2 by no means would clearly disqualify trump in 2016, what is more it is a vastly dangerous slope to go down.   It allows the internal and external security apparatus, not the judiciary, to set qualification on who can be president.    Given the evident effort Trump has put into subverting the internal and external security apparatus, it is easy to see how, if 2 becomes a rule, he could influence the security apparatus to disqualify any competitor.

I am more concerned about the lack of a national conversation about necessary preventative steps and the general feeling of many that once Trump is gone, he was just an aberration and everything will 'return to normal'.

I may certainly be wrong about these matters but we cannot just wait for the next dipshit to try and pull the same stuff.

Trump has surfaced something that, while perhaps exaggerated by his administration, has probably already been there ... the IC is clearly reluctant to deny security clearances the President requests and it appears that if he simply insists he gets what he wants. This should never have been the case. By your logic, one could argue that it is the job of Congress to vet and approve administration staff, not the security folks ... in my view security must be taken into account. Maybe it should just be part of the due diligence of the Senate as part of the confirmation process, but it should be mandated somewhere in the process.

As to the rest, of course a Trumpian president could try and probably succeed in subverting my other suggestions, especially if the AG is not elected but appointed. However, it makes the intent and spirit of the law abundantly clear and removes some of the ambiguity as to whether something is consequential or wrong or not. It makes subverting that intent MORE difficult, rather than drop-dead easy.

You are of course correct that in a world where truth doesn't matter, neither does law. But doing nothing is really not an option here IMO.

[Cecelia]

Nixon, with arguably worse crimes, resigned with no guarantees and look what happened.

I'd say Trump's crimes are worse.  He tried to leverage aid to foreign countries for information on a political opponent.  That puts America's interests at risk for his benefit.  Which makes his crimes far worse.  And that's JUST the Ukraine Scandal.

[brewer]

Nixon, with arguably worse crimes, resigned with no guarantees and look what happened.

I'd say Trump's crimes are worse.  He tried to leverage aid to foreign countries for information on a political opponent.  That puts America's interests at risk for his benefit.  Which makes his crimes far worse.  And that's JUST the Ukraine Scandal.

Nixon crimes, which also put America's interests at risk, just not a foreign risk. Trump alleged crimes (at least at this point). 

BTW, I'm not a Trump supporter.