politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
While that's generally true, this case is completely unprecedented. Ex-president charged with stealing top secret documents, obstruction of justice, and who knows what else before we're done.
Not to mention the other indictments he's got coming up for election interference and inciting a coup attempt.
No matter how lenient you may want to be, you absolutely cannot set a precedent that the punishment for attempting a coup of the United States government is... confinement to your luxury resort where you can continue to gin up another coup attempt at your leisure. You have to make an example of him or you just invite a repeat of the same attempt over and over again.
Best example of that would be Hitler, actually. After inciting a coup attempt in 1923, although he should have been sentenced to death for that, he only got the minimum possible sentence of five years, with the possibility of an early release. Which he got so he was only incarcerated for nine months, living pretty much in luxury in his own seperate tract of the prison. He used the time to write "Mein Kampf" and prepare his rise to political power.
True. Yet, I still find it extremely difficult to believe he'll be behind bars anywhere.
I don't even understand the whole Secret Service argument. If, he were put in prison, the extraordinary level of protection from the actual prison personnel should be just as adequate.
He belongs behind bars at minimum. I think he actually deserves a seat in an electric chair.
His rights to protection are granted by law. The law can also be revised to state that any former president convicted of a federal level felony and subjected to incarceration are no longer eligible.
It's the prisons problem, like any other high profile prisoner.
Prison problem... yes. They should be able to dismiss Secret Service within the property boundaries.
Other than medical issues that can't be handled in-house, there is zero reason for cheeto chump to leave the grounds. Video conference should handle any legal issues.
Id argue it doesn't matter. Protection is granted at the generosity of Congress. It can be revoked, and should be revoked if he is convicted.
There was a plan that (mind you, the law passed before Obama's election) W was the last president to recieve lifetime protection. All others coming after would get protection for like 4-8 years, then have to pay for it themselves.
Congress reversed course and revised the law to be lifetime again.
The law can change at any moment. They can easily write "this privledge will end if a former president is convinced of a crime and is incarcerated " and solve the logistics problem. It's not a right. It's a privledge.