The Republican problem is that more Republicans now think Trump’s actions were serious compared to Democrats who think they are not. And this has changed substantially since April.
Confused? This article explains, but might be paywalled.
Where does that place him in American terms?
The problem is reverse causation.
You hypothesize that the sending of a former head of state is causation to future events based on the apparent correlation.
I’d presume that a country that has the circumstances that result in such will likely continue to have such.
In some countries it is autocratic rule with a tradition of imprisoning those of the opposition.
In some it is that the corrupt successfully aspire to power but the country has enough rule of law that they are caught and punished.
Neither circumstance once extant is surprising to persist. But in the latter failure to punish is less likely to deter future corrupt politicians than punishment does.
Woke socialist commie.
Jesus, does Trump go out of his way to only listen to bad advice?
“He added that he read the indictment and did not believe it laid out illegal or obstructive conduct.” This was from Fitton, the lawyer who told Trump he was allowed to keep the documents. Now, I could see someone reading the indictment and saying, “Nah, those are all lies, that never happened”. It’d be stupid, but I could see it. But to read the indictment and conclude that it didn’t “lay out illegal or obstructive conduct”? WTF? Every action Trump took was intended to obstruct! How is that not plainly obvious?
Because the Donald is a law unto himself and the rules that apply to ordinary people don’t touch him.
Think of Trump as a sovereign citizen writ large, a polity of one.
Isn’t Nicola Sturgeon a one-timer?
True, she hasn’t gone to jail. Yet.
I think Boris Johnson might be teetering on the brink as well.
Or maybe he lives in Teetering-on-the-Brink. Easy to make that confusion in England.
Gift link.
Coyne voted Liberal last election. He is a moderate in Canadian terms and slightly left of the middle in American terms (social Democrat with some mild degree of Republican economics).
Yes. Let’s say that Trump wins the election from prison. He will be even more determined than today to imprison what he unjustly calls the Biden crime family. And it then becomes more likely.
Yes. That does seem to be a Trump goal for the U.S.
I was saying that the likely indictment sequela of a former national leader going to prison increases the chances of following leaders going to prison. I didn’t say anything about whether the second imprisonment would be just.
As far as the indictment triggering a sequence that deters future misdeeds, that’s a whole other topic. But I am tempted to ask those who think Trump getting his just desserts will help us to list low political corruption countries that are that way due to penalties and punishments. Do politicians in Denmark really act in a dignified law-abiding manner because of the punishment inflicted on dishonest predecessors?
I saw he had written for the conservative U.S. magazine Nation Review and that he was once tagged as a neoconservative. But maybe/probably I was jumping to an outdated conclusion in labeling him right of center.
He’s Canadian mainstream. He likes social programs, if efficient and needed, but balanced budgets (which none of our current parties advocates but is sorely needed). He is against anti-democratic practices by any party and has, I am sure, voted for all three major Canadian parties at any given time. Few Canadians are actually partisan or even care much about politics, an impression not bolstered by what one sees in the Dope since people who like politics like to discuss it. Americans would consider him woke. He is quick to criticize any party, however. He often reflects my views, and is a very skilled observer IMHO.
Neither of us are discussing what is “just”.
We discussing two possible hypothetical circumstances and how data may or may not inform.
In both an autocrat has gained and lost power by way of election.
In one the wannabe dictator has been fairly convicted under due process with adequate division of powers of breaking the constitution of their nation and is not significantly punished for the action. The rule of law is ignored.
In the other they are punished for criminal activity. The rule of law is respected.
Case studies in which a former ruler was imprisoned as part of an exercise in autocracy are not informative.
No question that unstable governments without a solid rule of law tradition and respect for peaceful transition of power see former leaders imprisoned with some regularity as coups of various sorts come and go. That’s a strong correlation. Of no informative value
It is perhaps true that countries that fail to enforce rule of law against corrupt leaders, who do not hold leaders accountable, will continue to not do so. And that countries with the strongest respect for rule of law rarely have it come up.
The United States presidency has it rarely come up.
As for Denmark, like the US it has a tradition of respect for rule of law, enforcing it on leadership that breaks the law, be they spy chiefs, or former high ranking ministers.
She is not a True Scotsman.
Good point, but I appreciate PhillyGuy’s research because it suggests we might be becoming a country that has such circumstances (a particular combination of them), and I would guess there is a bit of causation involved, in that a future President* may be slightly more willing to jail a former one from now on for political (or mostly political, i.e. “trumped-up”) reasons — because a precedent has been set (i.e., people now see this can happen here) — even though the first case was non-political.
*Via their DoJ
To be fair- It does look like Hunter perhaps committed Tax fraud. Mind you that rarely calls for prison time.
Sexism!
We are at risk of that simply based on the fact that we elected an autocrat who has actively worked against the long tradition of peaceful transfer of power. That alone is predictive of future instability risk. And a sizable minority of this country is supportive of that.
Meanwhile is fear of punishment usually why people follow rules and laws? Not in general I don’t think. But seeing cheaters, lawbreakers, getting away with it while we are dutiful undermines everyone else being rule following. It normalizes rule breaking and makes honesty the realm of the suckers.
Tom Fitton is not an attorney. Not only is Trump taking bad advice, he’s taking the advice of someone who isn’t an attorney over the advice of those who are.
I don’t see it.
If Hillary Clinton were jailed I would buy that argument.
But she wasn’t. Why? She didn’t do anything that warranted prison. At least, not that we know.
The whole email thing was bad, but not that bad. Hence why the consequences were wholly political.
Donald Trump committed crimes. Serious crimes. Multiple crimes. He wasn’t even subtle about it. People have questioned… Can someone do that and get away with it, just because they are rich, or famous, or have friends/sycophants with power, or once held the office of POTUS and thus have a permanent “get-out-of-jail-free” card? And I think we are seeing that, for the love of all that is good, the answer is NO. Surely there are two systems of justice, one for the haves, and another for the have-nots, but even the haves can’t get away with everything.
I don’t see a precedent for being able to go after your enemies. I see a precedent that the rule of law matters.
On a related note…
I suspect he doesn’t feel very confident about his chance to win this, and hopes that with it in federal court, either he can delay things until he is elected and can tell his Attorney General to drop the charges, or pardon himself after conviction.