Of the many countries that have punished corrupt leaders, possibly some of them questioned it the first time around. But I wonder how many had the same level of handwringing we see now?
Not as I see it.
No normal U.S. President interferes with Justice Department charging decisions as DJT promises:
The radical strategy behind Donald Trump’s promise to ‘go after’ Joe Biden
As for the international cases I mentioned, in the few I know something about, the successor president or prime minister did not “jail” a predecessor. Instead it went through a legitimate legal process. While some lower level politicians, at least in Taiwan, may have made questionable-to-me statements advocating prosecution, it was not ordered by the political level (appointing a special prosecutor, by itself, is, as done by the current U.S. administration, is an act of distancing).
There are parallels between Donald Trump and Taiwan’s Ma Ying-jeou — along with big differences. Both Trump and Ma were right-wing presidents who have baselessly said that their left of center successor administration engaged in political persecution. Both face/faced multiple trials (Ma won some, lost one). And neither successor, Biden or Tsai Ing-wen, ordered a criminal investigation, much less a jailing. Unfortunately, there’s no one place to read all about the very complicated Taiwan saga. And Ma’s Wikipedia’s biography currently seems to have been striped of relevant discussion.
As for how the cause and affect between jailing of two ex-presidents may have worked, here’s what the LA Times said:
In Taiwan, another former president is sentenced to prison
Other cases where a predecessor was jailed, but the successor leader did not commit the terrible act of legal retribution Trump openly plans, include those in Israel and France.
Very interesting — thank you for introducing us to the Taiwan case. I’ll learn more soon.
Tan the Conman really should not be demanding those who commit tax fraud be imprisoned.
Wiki tells me the extent of his education is a BA in English.
Yes the indictment matters. No it won’t save us. Make a work plan for 2024.
As noted above, Jack Smith decided not to restrict Trump’s movement, set bail, or take mug shots, treating him differently than other defendants in similar cases. He also decided not to charge Trump with a Section 2071, which prohibits concealing, removing or obliterating documents. Those convicted of that, “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
Why? The thinking is that Smith wants a tight case, with secondary issues and charges of uncertain constitutionality (like Section 2071) set aside. He wants to keep this focused. Gifted article: In Trump Prosecution, Special Counsel Seeks to Avoid Distracting Fights - The New York Times
Meanwhile it is entirely within Judge Cannon’s power to slow roll this, up to the point where Trump, if elected, could shut the case down. Could Trump win? Sure, if there’s a recession in 2024 he probably will.
So make a work plan for 2024. Our 230+ year old democratic experiment relies on many things, among them the sweat of patriots.
Honestly, I’m wondering how the De-Trumpification of American will play out if he’s convicted or he loses the election. A few years from now, will Trump voters lower their eyes in embarrassment when their children or grandchildren ask them how so many people were duped by the man? Or will they grow more dissatisfied and turn to violence? Some of their talking heads are talking about dismantling the whole system. Will they just ignore what’s happening like they did on January 6th?
I don’t think either. I think they’ll act like they were never Trump supporters and deny it. And find some other con artist to follow.
We have an historic analogy. A few years forward from Iraq’s devolving into Civil War (back in oh, 2005-2006), will conservatives lower their eyes in embarrassment when their children or grandchildren ask them why so many Americans died and 2 trillion dollars was wasted? The answer is no: it’s UFO cults all the way down.
Will they turn to violence? Heh. They already did on January 6, and it hasn’t worked out well for the foot soldiers. So no, I’m not worried about the yahoos, not yet. Trump has the charisma, but not the competence to organize an auxiliary military group loyal to him. DeSantis has the competence, but not yet the charisma. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4D38/production/_120386791_gettyimages-1296432193.jpg.webp
No, the path of democracy collapse is more mundane, involving Republican representatives who wish Trump would tweet less and a business community that should know better (democracy is great for business) but do not.
With the way things have gone post Jan 6th, I really doubt it. I could be wrong, but really hope I’m not. There have been plenty of threats of violence - or wink wink threats and calls to violence since then and they have been rather underwhelming in their turnout. The calls to disrupt the inauguration, to rally to Mar a Lago with arms to interfere with the FBI carrying out the search warrant and to prevent TFG from being indicted this Tuesday all turned out to be nothingburgers despite a lot of violent rhetoric in the delusional MAGA social network circles. They seem to have lost their appetite for actually turning to violence since Jan 6th seeing the actual outcome. They certainly haven’t lost their appetite for being loud mouthed internet posers on far-right social media circles, but when it comes to actually carrying it out in the real world, not so much.
That’s the precedent you see, and all sensible people see. But will it be the precedent that Trump and his supporters see? I’d bet large sums of money it won’t be.
If Trump wins in 2024, it’s a safe bet he’ll use this as an excuse to go after everyone he perceives as an enemy.
You’d think the plutocrats would take note of what happened after the German industrialists embraced Hitler in the 1930s. Oh, but “It can’t happen here” is such a powerful set of blinders in the service of shortsighted greed.
Trump’s indictment certainly matters to psephologists.
This is a new word for me, thanks. I also learned psephomancy, which is more or less what we’re doing here.
I don’t think organized rallies will turn violent; in general, I believe in the maxim that the well-fet middle-aged Trumpist crowd isn’t likely to turn to violence.
But, if the violence does break out (and there are a lot of guns out there) in such a way that it builds, it could get very ugly very quickly. I don’t think that’s at all likely, but it’s not impossible, either, and since I didn’t think a Trump presidency was at all likely, either, I worry.
His supporters are hateful, delusional conspiracy theorists. I don’t really care what they think.
There are millions of them. We can’t afford not to care what they think.
There are millions of crazy people in the world, too. And there’s no more satisfying the crazy people than there is in trying to please Trump’s supporters whose organizing principle is “If it drives the libs mad, I’m for it, even if it harms me and my own interests.”
You are aware that the millions of trump supporters vote, right? That’s the only reason we care about them. And we are absolutely NOT trying to please them. I’m having a hard time following your reasoning. Sorry. Must be me.
I’m not arguing that you need to satisfy them only that they cannot be ignored. In our last election, about 70,000,000 people voted for Trump and we simply do not have the luxury to ignore them. We’re not talking about a fringe element of our society we’re talking about mainstream political ideology.
Well. I’m aware that millions of people vote contrary to my interests in every election. What more do I need to do in order not to be ignoring them?
Many have said this. Does not ring true for me. Obama had charisma. Trump is just a yelling moron (among other things).