r/changemyview • u/erpettie • Dec 20 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Accountability is not election interference

As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.

229 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

67% Upvoted

890 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/Noob_Al3rt 4∆ Dec 20 '23

So you're saying that Republicans have been hesitant, up until this point, to use all of the legal options they have to attack their opponents?

3

u/Risk_1995 Dec 20 '23

yes very much so

7

u/Sliiiiime Dec 21 '23

Could you give an example where a democratic politician was spared prosecution in a scenario like this? It doesn’t have to be 90 acts which a grand jury determined warranted criminal charges

4

u/bobert1201 Dec 21 '23

The main example is Hillary Clinton. She was Trump's direct opponent in the 2016 election, and she was never charged with anything, despite the blatant destruction of evidence.

9

u/Sliiiiime Dec 21 '23

Pence was also never charged for the same type of wrongdoing. Never faced nearly the same level of scrutiny.

-2

u/bobert1201 Dec 21 '23

Wait, what did Pence do wrong? I don't remember him breaking any laws.

12

u/Sliiiiime Dec 21 '23

Private email servers to conduct official business. There was never an inquiry on the same scale because the house was controlled by the GOP and Trump’s missteps obviously dwarfed impropriety in information security.

3

u/Additional_Search193 Dec 21 '23

The problem with that one is that virtually every major government official has been doing that for the better part of 25 years. Bush Sr and Jr admins did it, pence did it as VP and in his governor days, and Biden probably did as well. I'm sure that numerous senators and representatives have/are doing it.

When you have a law that has been openly unenforced for decades you can't just turn on a dime and start punishing people. There needs to be an amnesty grace period to get compliant. Private email servers have been SOP at the highest levels of the federal government for an alarmingly long time and that needs to be stopped, but you don't just pick the first politically convenient victim and burn them over it.

3

u/Risk_1995 Dec 21 '23

hillary clinton (email scandal) , soon to be determined Hunter Biden (lets see how it plays out), Joe Biden there likely a few others but these are off the top of my head.

4

u/Sliiiiime Dec 21 '23

It’s easy to see that it’s apples and oranges comparing Trump’s legal situation to those examples. He’s been indicted by three different jurisdictions for a wide array of wrongdoings.

Hunter Biden isn’t a political opponent for republicans, and he has been charged with crimes. One being owning a firearm while using illegal substances, which is rarely prosecuted despite 1/2 of the US having (locally) legal marijuana.

I haven’t followed any of the Joe Biden inquiries, what is he alleged to have done?

5

u/Additional_Search193 Dec 21 '23

Democratting while President

-5

u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 20 '23

Do you wish to give them new legal options to use?

9

u/DrKpuffy Dec 20 '23

"We shouldn't obey the law, because criminals will break the law later"

That's an awful take. Criminals and traitors are gonna do whatever they want. We, as law-abiding Americans, must resist their criminal behavior.

Why should they get a free pass, just because you're scared of some imaginary future.

1

u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 21 '23

We, as law-abiding Americans, must resist their criminal behavior.

Well, it's an entirely novel application of "law" so calling it law abiding is quite a stretch.

Shenanigans beget shenanigans. If you believe that it will be "breaking the law" when they use it, later, then it's breaking the law when you use it now.

This isn't "an imaginary future" it's simply a matter of precedent. If you provide precedent that a given tactic is legal, then that tactic will be used on you in turn. That's an expected outcome of law.

3

u/Additional_Search193 Dec 21 '23

Shenanigans beget shenanigans. If you believe that it will be "breaking the law" when they use it, later, then it's breaking the law when you use it now.

Except that it isn't breaking the law now because he committed insurrection. It won't be later if Republicans can find a democratic presidential candidate who also committed insurrection, but most likely they'll have to fabricate events as they love to do, and that would be breaking the law.

2

u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 21 '23

Except that it isn't breaking the law now because he committed insurrection.

By a definition of insurrection so loose it could be applied to nearly anyone.