This is hopelessly naive. Heads of state should not be prosecuted in democracies. It sets a bad precedent and there is no easy way to apply the rule of law to the head of state. There are too many examples in history of abusive lawfare practices. Better not to nitpick about "crimes" in such cases and let the man disappear from the stage. Aggressive prosecutions only increase the likelihood he'll try to mount a political comeback.
Well, at least Sarkozy tried keeping it under the rug. And did more or less disappear from the stage because of how extremely unpopular he was (making any type of "political comeback" somewhat unfeasible).
Unlike someone else who is engaging in extreme corruption and is trampling the constitution of his country completely in the open and will likely never face any repercussions.
Maybe... if someone did prosecute him this whole thing could have been avoided?
"Corruption" is a term for proles. It's better understood as a political word that loosely translates to "what my opponent does." If you think only one party's members are guilty of technical crimes, then we are on different planets.
If you're talking about Orange Man Bad then he was, in fact, prosecuted, and it was a political own-goal by the Dems. Complete and total waste of time and resources for short-term political gains that never actually materialized. And it discredited the institution of impeachment forever. Well done.
I assume the whole concept of the rule of law is also meaningless to you? Blatantly abusing your office for personal gain entirely in the open while violating a bunch of laws in the process (that nobody is willing or capable of enforcing for that that matter..) is corruption. Silly demagoguery won't change that.
> If you think only one party's members are guilty of technical crimes
Never said or implied that. No clue what you mean by "technical crimes" either.
That matters little. It's a category error. People say things like "no one is above the law" but that isn't true. Not because of corruption, but because of the nature of politics. Law is downstream from politics and therefore in a very real sense subservient to it. To apply the law to political figures can never be done in a clean or unambiguous way, since it will always support the suspicion of lawfare, which degrades confidence in the law for the rest of us. To preserve the law for the common stock, we can't use law against political figures without debasing the currency of law. It is also the case that trying to constrain political figures using the law is anti-democratic. If the will of the people can be overruled by the shrewd use of legal challenges then you have a juristocracy, not a democracy. The legal system can and will be abused when it is used politically.
Not only is it a category error, it is undesireable. Let them fight it out in the special realm of politics and leave our legal systems alone so we can enjoy their benefits.
Well as long as he declares that it's an "official act" he is certainly able to do that perfectly legally.
Given that the precedent is that the president can arbitrarily decide that the country is in a permanent state of national emergency and suspend the constitution indefinitely (which is literally what happened with the tariffs) that seems quite reasonable.
You are right without meaning to be. This is actually the correct interpretation. Who else decides if the country is in a state of emergency? That is politics.
The whole concept of "state of emergency" becomes meaningless if you are somehow in a permanent state of emergency. Or if there is no change in circumstances whatsoever and a new administration decides that the country is suddenly in a state of emergency for no particular reason.
Sure, its politics but it shouldn't be a hack for the president to do whatever he wants illegally. Obviously the courts should step in and stop this. Otherwise the constitution might as well be discarded and the congress disbanded.
It depends on the politician. And not whether they should but whether they could. That's the critical distinction. One that gets lost when ignorantly amplifying misquotes. The actual quote from Trump was that he could do so and not lose votes. About that he was correct. QED.
That answers the question of whether or not it was satire.
> s lost when ignorantly amplifying misquotes
Just barely squeezed that ad hominem in, with some plausible deniability. Nice.
In any case - I suppose it could, if one misquoted. Fortunately for me, was intentional as my version seems to reflect the gist of what you're saying: we (the people) shouldn't enforce the law when it comes to the actions of the leaders we elect.
> Law is downstream from politics and therefore in a very real sense subservient to it. To apply the law to political figures can never be done in a clean or unambiguous way
This is untrue anywhere that has the rule of law. (One can run a system where the law is secondary to politics. But it doesn't have the benefits of rule of law.)
> To preserve the law for the common stock, we can't use law against political figures without debasing the currency of law
The entire history of the rule of law runs in the opposite direction. Prosecuting current and former politicians strengthens the rule of law. What it weakens, temporarily, is stability. You need strong institutions to take on and survive prosecuting a former politican, particularly a former head of state.
> If the will of the people can be overruled by the shrewd use of legal challenges then you have a juristocracy, not a democracy
You have a republic. Pure democracy doesn't work.
> legal system can and will be abused when it is used politically
Which is exactly what shielding politicians from prosecution causes.
The Roman Republic had this flaw. One of the perks of magistracy was immunity from prosecution. This not only encouraged corruption, it incentivised lawbreaking during office for politcal advantage and ultimately led to the downfall of the Republic when expiring politicians chose violence over losing immunity.
There is no such thing as the "rule of law." It is a political myth useful as an organizing principle for regime change or as a legitimizing myth for an established political class seeking stability, but that doesn't make Law sovereign. Political Will (in the form of those who control institutions) rules and makes the laws. The laws are "parchment barriers" if there is no political will with the force to impose laws.
It is 100% false that prosecuting current and former politicians strengthens law when we're talking above a certain low threshold of corruption. In those cases, it's up to the ruling class to police its own by using the legal code against low-level political figures and officials. The Chinese Communist Party operates this way more overtly but same principle. The incentive to do so is to strengthen the legitimacy of that ruling class, not because the law says you must.
According to the Law, you and I are committing "Three Felonies a Day". If the law were en vigueur then you and I and everyone else would be prosecutable 1984-style. It's at the whim of The Prosecutor to decide whether or not to pursue. Sound good to you? Me neither. The only thing stopping that is politics. When the political will is on the side of prosecution, then there will be prosecutions. We saw this with some heavy-handedness during the early days of the GWOT, 2020, Covid, hate speech legislation, many such cases.
The point being, interpretation of laws is a point of political conflict, often very sharp-elbowed. Even in the cases where laws are unambiguously stated (rare), there's still interpretation of the evidence, which doesn't happen in a political vacuum. Who would disagree?
You don't have to look far in history to see the abuse of the legal system in politics. Watergate is a prime example. Uninformed people think Nixon committed crimes and had to go. Anyone who spends just a little time looking at the details of that episode understands it as a political coup executed using lawfare. Whatever you think of Nixon's politics, the facts support that he was taken down by the anti-communist hawks in the defense establishment, largely in consequence of his opening up China. (The reasons were anti-USSR but given that China subsequently went from an agrarian backwater to a global competitor, one could debate whether they were right for the wrong reasons.)
Impeachment as a check/balance was just recently burned in Congress as a political tool to remove a sitting president. Extremely shortsighted. Or perhaps it just exposed it as a paper tiger. I thought it was burned when it was used against Clinton but it was only singed. Now it's completely discredited and no one will take it seriously ever again. That's the effect of abusing the law for political purposes.
What happened to the Roman Republic was overdetermined, but the Senate's threatened political prosecution of Caesar is historically understood to have
been a motivating factor in his "crossing the Rubicon". If they hadn't threatened him with lawfare, would the Republic have survived a little longer? Perhaps.
> no such thing as the "rule of law." It is a political myth useful as an organizing principle
Everything we’re discussing is made up. That’s what social constructs like law, politics and language are.
> up to the ruling class to police its own by using the legal code against low-level political figures and officials. The Chinese Communist Party operates this way
You’re inspired by Legalism. It rejects the rule of law. It stands in conflict to the institutions of a republic, specifically, of voting.
(Also, the Chinese would execute someone for doing what Sarkozy or Trump did. Eliciting foreign interference in a domestic political contest and challenging the outcome of one with open violence. Former Presidents have been treated roughly for worse.)
> the Senate's threatened political prosecution of Caesar is historically understood to have been a motivating factor in his "crossing the Rubicon"
The Senate didn’t threaten Caesar with prosecution until after he crossed. Cato, personally, was threatening him.
> a political coup executed using lawfare
Impeachment and conviction is lawfare according to you?
> Now it's completely discredited and no one will take it seriously ever again. That's the effect of abusing the law for political purposes
It’s been “discredited” before. The teeth are in removal from office, not impeachment per se. (That’s just American civic ineptitude.)
To the extent that we’re abusing the law, you’re correct. I’ve seen serious brainstorming on how a D President can use Trump’s precedents to act swiftly ahead of Congress and the courts, for example, to accomplish policy goals that are popular but have been difficult to do precisely legally. If the President is above the law, he doesn’t need to worry about that constraint anymore.
> If they hadn't threatened him with lawfare, would the Republic have survived a little longer? Perhaps.
It did. Caesar didn’t end the Republic. That was his son, Octavius.
The point is when the Republic’s laws stopped applying to Caesar, it was effectively dead. There is no point calling for votes in that context.
We have a large number of authoritarian fascists in America. (There are also authoritarian leftists. They have not been politically empowered like the right has been.) The historic solutions to those were through law and then violence. If the law doesn’t apply, that leaves only violence. That’s civil war.
We’re not there yet. But we do need to make a concerted effort to ensure these folks are politically incapacitated while a basic civic education campaign can be completed, since basic concepts like “rule of law” isn’t taught outside the elites.
You’re citing history, ancient and modern, inaccurately to push an edgy narrative. I don’t know if you’re trolling or have been unwittingly trolled.
I'm not trolling, just disagreeing. I personally wouldn't argue that everything we're discussing is "made up." I'm arguing that "rule of law" is a particular legitimizing myth or political narrative used as a frame to block certain kinds of actions as being "out of bounds" but is not, in fact, sovereign, because a) "rule of law" has no autonomy or executive action without political will, and b) it is used primarily by constitutionalists or other so-called enlightenment rationalists as a kind of rear-naked choke or groin-strike to end debate. Unpacking the meaning of "law" quickly gives the lie to the whole charade. We are not "ruled" by law. That truly would be legalism (not something I'm inspired by, tbf). We're ruled by people who control the law and use it to achieve political ends. On a pedestrian scale, some of us are subject to the law and some of us are not. Not just political actors but also favored groups. I hope that's not controversial for you.
I don't want to digress into Ancient Roman history but it's specious to argue that Caeser was only threatened after he broke the law. That's just not a plausible reading of history. It's well-established that crossing the Rubicon was the culmination of political conflict with the Senate, not the inception. Octavian would not have been in a position to end the republic if not for his uncle.
Impeachment is lawfare, of course. It is almost by definition a political act of parties in Congress. What could be more lawfare than that? Use the courts to attack your political enemies. Removal from office in a western democracy is "mostly peaceful" but I agree that removal from office is the solution with teeth. The parent post is about prosecuting former heads of state. That's 3rd world shit. At least in the 3rd world you would do that to remove a rival. Here it just seems to be vindictive. At best a shot across the bow of Sarkozy's patrons. If that's the motivation it's at least understandable. My objection is when people are propagandized to the point of being traumatized by political fights that have zero impact on their lives.
I don't believe terms like "fascists" have any meaning in the current political discourse and immediately suspect people who use that term casually. If half the country is fascist then we've really lost the plot. Nor do I think narratives about civil war are creditable at this time. The sectarian ingredients are not present in this country. Bringing it up is an appeal to extremes to discredit the vast middle ground.
What is the curriculum of that "basic civic education" campaign you propose should be completed? Sounds ominous.
> To apply the law to political figures can never be done in a clean or unambiguous way
Well yes. That's certainly the case when the system is deeply corrupt and only superficially democratic. They shouldn't be above the law nor their opponents should have the power to abuse it.
This is not correct. Very many laws live much longer than the term of a politician. They are as much upstream to politics as downstream to it. A correct way of talking about this is as co-equal branches of government. Also 'politics' lumps together the executive and the legislative branch.
The whole point of democracies is that the head of state, and other politicians, are just average people bound by the same laws as everyone else. They're public servants doing a job, that's it.
> there is no easy way to apply the rule of law to the head of state
Then you don't have either rule of law or, very soon, a democracy. What is obeying the outcome of an election but a legal matter? What's to stop the head of state from simply wiring the contents of the Treasury to his personal bank account? Deciding he doesn't like the official residence and having it demolished to build a palace?
Say someone is legally elected president of France. They serve their 5 years term, doing their job.
They get out of Elysée Palace, draw a gun and shoot a passer by. Do they get a free pass? Wouldn't that victim deserve justice?
That person, not a divine being, a mere mortal like the rest of us, has been convicted of serious offences. He is now serving his sentence as any other person would (well, not exactly, for instance he gets a clean solo room and 24/7 security detail).
If your point is "an elected head of state should not be prosecuted by a standard court of justice" (a point I still disagree with btw), the french judicial system got that covered with "cour de justice de la république".
For offenses committed while doing their jobs. Use your elected position as president to steal money? Cour de justice de la république it is. Not a walk in the park, judges & a "jury" of members of the Parliament. Aggravating circumstances (committing an offense while in an official capacity) means theoritically harsher sentences.
What he's been convicted for was as a private citizen. Standard judicial system. As should be, nothing naïve about this.
(Huge simplification of the french judicial system, the actual nature of his current legal status, etc as this case is utterly complex. Judge's ruling is over 400 pages long, and he's appealing, and he'll mostly spend a month in the lam and the rest under house arrest)
