[Joeri]

When a different side takes control of the justice department they may choose to go after all those who broke the law by order of this president. The president might be protected from consequences according to the supreme court, but those answering to the president are not.

This administration has set the standard that the justice department can be weaponized against political enemies. The ratchet only goes one way in American politics, presidents never relinquish the powers claimed by their predecessors.

[ryandrake]

The obvious solution to this is to change everything structurally needed to ensure the other side never again takes control, which is clearly also in progress.

[itsoktocry]

>The obvious solution to this is to change everything structurally needed to ensure the other side never again takes control, which is clearly also in progress.

- Signed, the side that tried to throw a candidate in prison.

[throw0101c]

> The president might be protected from consequences according to the supreme court, but those answering to the president are not.

Unless they are granted a blanket pardon beforehand.

Then all you can really do is an "audit" for who did what, from which no charges can be laid.

[jayd16]

Just lock them up anyway and pardon yourself for ignoring the pardon if that's how the game is played.

The idea of a blanket pardon is absurd on its face and we're only allowing it because we're allowing political prosecution.

[zippyman55]

That does not allow escaping from international laws.

[ajross]

> When a different side takes control of the justice department

That's an argument about the degradation of the rule of law, taking as a prior that the rule of law won't degrade. It's... unpersuasive. The end goal of this kind of thinking is that the other side never does take control, ever.

The current administration pretty clearly does not intend to give up power. They tried to evade democracy once already, and have fixed the mistakes this time.

Whether they will be successful or not is unknowable. But that's the plan. And the determining factor is very unlikely to be the normal operation of American civil society. Winning elections is, probably, not enough anymore.

[meowface]

He will very likely just pardon everyone on his last day.

[kranke155]

There are some signs that the current Administration has no intention of allowing “a diferente side” to retake power.

Trump third term being one.

[elaus]

As someone not from the US and looking from the outside: it seems there is a _significant_ difference between the two administrations in this regard?

[throw0101c]

> Like Biden didn't weaponize the justice department first?!

Out of genuine curiosity: what specific actions do you think were 'weaponized' investigations / prosecutions under Biden?

[jayd16]

I think the Clintons might take issue with who was weaponizing the justice department when. From Starr to Bengazi...

Like, do you truly believe Biden started this? What was the first act?

[luddit3]

He prosecuted his own son.

[margalabargala]

Let's say for a moment he did.

Shouldn't that be fixed rather than now abused further?

If your justification for Trump doing something is that "Biden did it first", then that means Biden is no worse than Trump. It means Trump just just following along the path Biden laid for him to the same goal.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

The left doesn't acknowledge any of that.