Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power.
It’s scary that we have to set this precedent, but it’d be scarier if we don’t.
With something completely unrelated? That's a concerning viewpoint.
I guess it would be concerning if you commit so many crimes that nobody knew which one you'd actually be charged with first.
Me, I just try to not do that.
A well meaning sentiment but we all break the law on a daily basis. The amount of laws in the US Code is staggering and if a motivated DA wants to charge someone of a crime, they’ll find a way. Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silvergate is a perfect primer on this subject.
From what I understand, this indictment is about accounting and how a payment was classified. Not that the payment itself was illegal, or that it was some bombshell. Some argue it was a legal expense, some argue it should have been a campaign expenditure. It could go either way.
> Some argue it was a legal expense, some argue it should have been a campaign expenditure.
Whomst among us has never bought the silence of a porn star using political campaign funds?
Declaring one’s self a dictator doesn’t grant power. That’s not how power works at all.
Even CEO's and board members don't.
The only reason they don't fight to the death is because they believe they can get a normal life afterwards. This just selects for psychopath candidates willing to cross every line to fight and keep power.
As a manager who keeps ending up with more people, asked to take on more, and would love to get back to IC; you sound like a manager I would never want to work for.
You don't like it because you don't understand how upper management thinks, that's why you want to go back to being an IC.
You have to understand upper management to protect your teams.
Do you think the business would be in good standing if the CEO violently tried to stay, after a legal vote of no confidence?
There’s a reason why CEOs and business leaders don’t really make it to the Presidency.
https://time.com/4547837/donald-trump-business-presidents/ in case you get stuck.
Presidents aren't kings, they can't just "use the power of government" to keep themselves in power indefinitely, and they aren't above the law, in or out of office, despite what some of them might say.
It doesn't matter if they want to relinquish power or not, their power ends when the Constitution says it does and if a president refuses to leave when the clock runs out, the Marines will put a gun to their head and show them the door. Which is as it should be.
But Trump did that, so he is exactly the man we should be making an example of.
> Kind of what happened on Jan 6.
A riot by angry admirers of the last President when they overran the White House with only token resistance? You prevent that by arresting him?
Because if he doesn't relinquish it the other branches will remove him anyway, as was imminent with Nixon. Trump wasn't convicted by the Senate, but his butt was still kicked out of the White House on Inauguration Day. American democracy isn't fantastic but it's still a long way from the President having absolute control.
"They will double down if we try to punish them." is a hollow argument that could be used to justify not punishing any crime. A pickpocket might try to run or fight back if he knows he will be punished, but that's not a reason to let him do it, it's a reason to have teams of fit people equipped with tazers and handcuffs that can subdue him anyway.
It wasn't imminent at all.
If Nixon wanted to end the republic as we know it, he nearly could have. He had a insane mandate by the people.
It took some time and solid investigation but his party wholesale rejected him and made it clear he had no political future. Nixon was could either resign or be humiliatingly fired.
We no longer have a Congress which values country over party. There’s a good chance Trump could have murdered someone on 5th Avenue and he still would not have been impeached.
It's also safely assumed that a full 60% of the public would not have voted for him if they knew he was going to betray his duty.