>Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him.

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.

I want to agree, but the Constitution is just a piece of paper, what matters is the will of people to accept or deny it.

> Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits 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.

Richard Nixon won the 1972 U.S. presidential election by a large margin. He defeated the Democratic Party nominee, George McGovern, by winning 60.7% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes out of 537. This was one of the largest landslides in U.S. presidential election history.

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.

He didn’t have an insane mandate of Congress, which decidedly was going to impeach him.

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.

That's an F grade in any high school history class. Nixon's own party made it clear they were going to remove him if he didn't resign. You can't deny undisputed historical facts.

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.

“The law” would seem to be a reasonably succinct and correct answer to this question.

> Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him.

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.

> Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power.

With something completely unrelated? That's a concerning viewpoint.

> 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.

>”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.

> A well meaning sentiment but we all break the law on a daily basis.

> 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?

We will see where Georgia lands in regards to this specific crime.

Seems like it's normal for the US. Just look at Al Capone: murdered who knows how many people, ran an organized crime syndicate, but was finally taken down not for any of those crimes, but because he lied on his taxes.

Huh that's not the precedent it sets at all, it asks presidents to become Caesar or risk Annihilation

* * *

That's not how power works. When a person has the power to declare themselves dictator, they don't then arrest themselves for dishonoring the election.

In a republic, power is granted.

Declaring one’s self a dictator doesn’t grant power. That’s not how power works at all.

No one in power believes this. As a manager I can tell you are an IC and not a manager, director or anything close.

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.

How many do you manage?

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.

I manage 100 people and work closely with all the executives.

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.

You directly manage 100 people? Or do you mean you have direct reports who in turn manage as well?

Ok so you aren't that high up at all, No one manages 100 people directly, but I do manage them.

So your business doesn’t have rules and contracts? If the board of directors fires the CEO—quite rare—do you think they have any legal grounds to perpetually stay?

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.

What are you talking about Business leaders have made it to the presidency multiple times.

Name them. It’s not zero, I’ll agree there.

https://time.com/4547837/donald-trump-business-presidents/ in case you get stuck.

Why would a future president think there are any limits whatsoever on his actions, when a future of prosecution will never await him? Kind of what happened on Jan 6.

It's the continuation of the unitary executive of the Bush Doctrine that has allowed Presidents to act with impunity, along with the blank checks that Congress writes them in order to avoid responsibility. Mislabeling payoffs to prostitutes is a triviality.

> 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?

You prevent it by not electing someone so obviously unfit for office. Failing that, you discourage it by not giving him reason to believe that he's untouchable. (Sadly, his ragtag army of goons had to learn the hard way.)

Uhh the guy in this indictment is the president who didn't want to relinquish power before he was charged with crimes. He obviously didn't need to be charged before attempting treason and autocracy.

Well, in this philosophy, there's only one real thing that you should punish presidents for, and that's trying to use their power to keep themselves in power.

But Trump did that, so he is exactly the man we should be making an example of.

"as long as possible" is two terms, in the US, no?