The official Twitter account of the POTUS is @POTUS, not @realdonaldtrump.
That’s true in the sense that Twitter’s rules change specifically motivated by Trump’s violation of their pre-existing rules applied globally, not just in the US, and enabled and was seized on by similarly-oriented leaders elsewhere, as well.
Those laws are a mistake, because sooner or later, you elect a man who revels in being above the law, and who will act accordingly. Yesterday, such a man started a coup, in order to retain power. A few days before that, he was committing election fraud in Georgia. These are serious crimes, the consequences of which he is shielded from.
It's just a modern version of the divine right of kings.
These laws exist for a reason. And just because Trump is Trump doesn't mean it doesn't work well most of the time. Remember this is the same man chanting "lock her up" and promised to change libel laws so he could sue everyone and their mother. Do you think he wouldn't have gone after elected officials with lawsuits?
And for most countries these laws are very far from absolute, and/or come with escape hatches.
If you are a DA, yes. Private citizens can't file criminal charges. A judge would throw your case out, and you'd probably be disbarred, though. Those are the checks and balances inside our legal system.
If you can't see the difference between POTUS committing a clearly defined crime (Say, election fraud... Or sedition.) and the legal 'theories' of the sovereign citizen movement, I don't know what to say.
> Or charge MPs for libel or slander for saying their opinion about something?
1. You can already do that. Libel and slander are civil cases, and you can sue anyone you want in civil court, for any reason whatsoever, including POTUS.
2. If the courts find it to actually be libel or slander, why the hell not? If an elected official knowingly spreads lies and falsehoods that cause you material harm, you should be entitled to restitution.
> These laws exist for a reason.
Yes, elected officials passed them to protect themselves from legal consequences for their actions.
> And just because Trump is Trump doesn't mean it doesn't work well most of the time.
No, it doesn't work well most of the time. There's a very clear lack of equality under the law in this country - with the executive, its minions, and its friends being very clearly above the law.
> Remember this is the same man chanting "lock her up" and promised to change libel laws so he could sue everyone and their mother.
So, hold on, let's break this down.
We currently have laws that protect the executive from criminal prosecution.
This protection, at the moment, only applies to the current executive, not someone who might become part of the executive in the future.
And you are concerned that weakening these laws will let the current executive attack their future opposition.
... That doesn't make a lick of sense. Prior to getting elected, Trump had no power to 'lock her up'. After Trump got elected, Hillary was no longer protected, because she was not part of the executive.
How exactly is making the sitting president immune to criminal prosecution protect their political opponents from his vindictive behaviour? If anything, it empowers his vindictive behaviour. He is using these laws to protect himself, as he attack his opposition, and prevents a peaceful transfer of power.
And yes, I'm aware that impeachment exists. The impeachment process is a kangaroo court, the impartiality of which would make a Soviet judge blush.
I'm not really interested about a conversation about various details; especially not if your response is just a flat unnuanced "elected officials passed them to protect themselves from legal consequences". I'm not even talking about the US specifically. The world is larger than the US, and the US doesn't even have MPs. I don't even know the specifics of the US laws on this.