[delayed]

he was not particularly popular at the end of his first term. mainstream right was not pleased with the bad optics of january 6, young right was not pleased that MAGA became MIGA and "build the wall!" became "build what wall?". the early days of COVID fascism happened under him as well. it's fairly obscure lore now, but he'd lost all that deplorable alt right support that supposedly got him nominated and elected in the first place. for example: https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-mag...

he would've never got reelected if the democrats of 2021-2024 resembled democrats of 2008. his reelection was a violently retarded response to the clown world antics of that era.

> Why would that happen if it didn’t happen when they had 4 years to do it the first time?

Not saying it will certainly happen, but there will be different people at helm this time, and his more crimes are out now.

I don't think it will happen for ideological reasons. Despite his lack of respect for the decorum of US democracy, most others have too much respect for it to start putting former leaders in prison.

So the "decorum of US democracy" means that a president can murder, rape, pillage and raid, yet should not be put into prison?

What a country.

The US political apparatus has a lot of unwritten standards that are followed out of tradition. While people might vehemently disapprove of how Trump has pushed or blown past those limits, doing the same thing to achieve accountability might set a new lower bar for those traditions, rather than restoring them.

A lot of pretty words to give a dressed up version of "yes". That's what you're saying: Yes, it's a good thing if a US president can murder, rape and pillage without going to prison. Where do you sraw the line? Raping 10 children? 100? You're making it sound as if there isn't one.

> I don't think we want to end up with 57 supreme court justices at the end of this, and a Korean-style tradition of the presidency-to-prison pipeline.

Those presidents going to prison did a coup to stay in power or had their personal shaman run the country behind the scenes. Of course you want a "to prison" pipeline for such cases if you're looking to stay a stable, welfaring country.

> I think it is probably better to have a system that can restore/maintain a socio-political focus on professionalism.

Correct, which is why the law needs to be applied equally. That's the fundamental basis of the rule of law. Otherwise it's worth nothing.

Yeah, in some hypothetical situation where a leader is directly involved in a violent crime, yeah, I don't think there would be any issue drawing a line there.

But that isn't what we're talking about here -- we're talking about actions taken related to his official duties. That is an inherently politicized situation where even the textual rule of law does provide for special allowances precisely for this reason.

> Of course you want a "to prison" pipeline for such cases if you're looking to stay a stable, welfaring country.

I think the evidence around the world shows that precisely the opposite is true.

It's much better than the South American alternative of throwing the former president in prison every single time the party switches.

Leaders do a lot of things and laws are complicated, lawfare is stupidly easy.

I strongly doubt any American top leader will ever go to prison. That's something that gets decided by American top leaders, who are very aware of what happens when you open that Pandora's box: look at countries like Taiwan or South Korea, where it seems like basically any government position ends in a prison cell.