Former President Donald Trump was indicted for an unprecedented third time on August 1, adding another set of serious federal charges to the mounting legal issues he faces.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It makes sense though. Think about it like this, A politician that wanted to stay in power could disqualify his opponents by wielding the DOJ as a personal tool and nailing them with felony charges. Trump could have placed a more loyal attorney general, nailed Biden on some bullshit petty offense that technically qualifies as a felony, and have his name removed from the ballot shortly before the election. Allowing felons to run for president defangs that particular power move. To disqualify someone the 14th amendment would have to be invoked, and should be in Trump’s case.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        A politician that wanted to stay in power could disqualify his opponents by wielding the DOJ as a personal tool and nailing them with felony charges

        It’s how Putin and other despots have been doing it for a very long time.

      • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I do see the validity of this argument, it still feels like treating the symptoms rather than the cause. If the fear is a sitting president welding his personal power to imprison (and thus disqualify) a political rival, isn’t the bigger problem that a sitting president has the power to do this in the first place?

        • BlinkAndItsGone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Justice Department has to be able to indict people, that’s part of its function. And the DoJ is part of the executive branch. A good President will not use the DoJ for his personal political purposes, but the incentive to do so, if it was there, would be extremely powerful. I think it’s probably a good idea to remove it. If the people can’t be trusted not to vote for a criminal or a traitor, we have bigger problems.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve heard the logic is to prevent people from wanting to retroactively legalize shit to secure votes from felons, which doesn’t make a lot of sense tbh