Yes, but only for federal crimes, not state charges. It’s kind of a moot act for official acts, because the Supreme Court already stated presidents are immune to prosecution for official acts, so they’d have to pardon themselves for personal criminal acts. Most of those can be charged by a state or on a local level, non federal, so it would be risky. However, practically the US doesn’t have a great appetite for charging and prosecuting Presidents.
The most notorious criminal president before Trump was Nixon, and only about 57% of polled citizens wanted him prosecuted. That’s not a lot, considering how serious his crimes were for that time in politics and the nation.
The breakdown:
By Political Party (Sept 6–9, 1974 Gallup poll):
Democrats: 68% to 70% favored a trial (25%–27% opposed).
Independents: 55% to 60% favored a trial (34%–36% opposed).
Republicans: 33% to 38% favored a trial, while 56% to 59% opposed it
When was that poll taken? We’ve learned a whole lot more about Nixon’s shenanigans since then, and I know he still had overwhelming public support for a very long time even after the Watergate scandal broke. The information landscape in the early 70s was a lot different than it is now.
Yeah, at that date, I’m not surprised at those results. He’d already resigned, Ford pardoned him on Sep 8 1974 (right in the middle of that poll) with a “healing the nation” message.
To be an American President, is to be a criminal. Every last one of them.
Edit: Ok downvoters, lets play a game. You name the president and I will name their crimes. Anyone is free to join. By crime, I mean where the rule of law was bent and ignored, thus neither blind nor just, and only tolerated legally due to the corruption and double-standards of the powerful at the time.
The Carter doctrine was just an expansion and intensification of militarily defending their “national interests” in other people’s countries. More US imperialism.
Arming and training the Afghanis against Russia, who would later become the Taliban. Because the shaw of Iran’s CIA operations blowback didn’t teach anyone any lessons.
Arming the North Yemeni against the Marxist south during the south Yemeni war.
The Camp David Accords that settled the fighting between Egypt and Israel by settling palestinian lands without involving the Palestinians. It was condemned by the UN for not involving the palestinians and for egypt acting on behalf of the arab league without their agreement. It divided the arab league. Denied palestine statehood and avoided international consensus. Look where this lead us today.
It actually is ok when governments do it. I am anti death penalty, but it is not a crime when a government executes a criminal. Your definition of crime is wildly expansive.
Slavery was not a crime, until it was. The death penalty was condemned widely by civilized nations, Amnesty International, a breach of human rights under international law. Your definition of crime is blind.
He oversaw 30 “treaties” with natives as part of America’s systematic removal of people from his lands.
History writes him as being an advocate who fought for voluntary removal, not the forced relocations, but he was still responsible for stolen native land and colonialism. Bit of a whitewash here as colonialism is colonialism, and he only differed in degree, not principle.
He signed the Treaty of Indian Springs and later admitted the natives were under duress and it was not in good faith. Later treaties added compensation, but was a pittance of the lands true value and Quincy did not believe in Native property rights to begin with, or understand the native concept of land stewardship.
Yes, but only for federal crimes, not state charges. It’s kind of a moot act for official acts, because the Supreme Court already stated presidents are immune to prosecution for official acts, so they’d have to pardon themselves for personal criminal acts. Most of those can be charged by a state or on a local level, non federal, so it would be risky. However, practically the US doesn’t have a great appetite for charging and prosecuting Presidents.
That bud needed to be nipped at Nixon.
I don’t know about the US not having a great appetite for prosecuting Presidents. Just those who make the decisions don’t have that appetite.
I for one would love if every person in government were held to at least the same standards as their constituents, ideally higher standards.
The most notorious criminal president before Trump was Nixon, and only about 57% of polled citizens wanted him prosecuted. That’s not a lot, considering how serious his crimes were for that time in politics and the nation.
The breakdown:
By Political Party (Sept 6–9, 1974 Gallup poll):
When was that poll taken? We’ve learned a whole lot more about Nixon’s shenanigans since then, and I know he still had overwhelming public support for a very long time even after the Watergate scandal broke. The information landscape in the early 70s was a lot different than it is now.
It says when it was taken in the post I made, always was there from the moment I posted it
Whoops, sorry, I am bad at reading.
Yeah, at that date, I’m not surprised at those results. He’d already resigned, Ford pardoned him on Sep 8 1974 (right in the middle of that poll) with a “healing the nation” message.
To be an American President, is to be a criminal. Every last one of them.
Edit: Ok downvoters, lets play a game. You name the president and I will name their crimes. Anyone is free to join. By crime, I mean where the rule of law was bent and ignored, thus neither blind nor just, and only tolerated legally due to the corruption and double-standards of the powerful at the time.
William Henry Harrison
Funny.
Welp, you failed then.
I could use some schooling this morning. What was Carter’s crime?
The Carter doctrine was just an expansion and intensification of militarily defending their “national interests” in other people’s countries. More US imperialism.
Arming and training the Afghanis against Russia, who would later become the Taliban. Because the shaw of Iran’s CIA operations blowback didn’t teach anyone any lessons.
Arming the North Yemeni against the Marxist south during the south Yemeni war.
The Camp David Accords that settled the fighting between Egypt and Israel by settling palestinian lands without involving the Palestinians. It was condemned by the UN for not involving the palestinians and for egypt acting on behalf of the arab league without their agreement. It divided the arab league. Denied palestine statehood and avoided international consensus. Look where this lead us today.
There is more, but I have errands to run.
Fwiw, an Afghani is a unit of currency. An Afghan is a person from Afghanistan.
What crime are you referring to? Giving weapons is not a crime. You could argue it backfired.
Accessory to murder. But hey, its ok when governments do it.
What would you call it if it were done to you? Terrorism.
It actually is ok when governments do it. I am anti death penalty, but it is not a crime when a government executes a criminal. Your definition of crime is wildly expansive.
Slavery was not a crime, until it was. The death penalty was condemned widely by civilized nations, Amnesty International, a breach of human rights under international law. Your definition of crime is blind.
Every human is a criminal. Every baby, a criminal. Even plants? You guessed it. Criminals.
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
I knew I got bad vibes from my succulents.
They’re the worst criminals of all!
They horde and monopolize water!
See, this is how Judge Death got his start.
What did John Quincy Adams do? I thought he was cool :(
Seminole War.
He oversaw 30 “treaties” with natives as part of America’s systematic removal of people from his lands.
History writes him as being an advocate who fought for voluntary removal, not the forced relocations, but he was still responsible for stolen native land and colonialism. Bit of a whitewash here as colonialism is colonialism, and he only differed in degree, not principle.
He signed the Treaty of Indian Springs and later admitted the natives were under duress and it was not in good faith. Later treaties added compensation, but was a pittance of the lands true value and Quincy did not believe in Native property rights to begin with, or understand the native concept of land stewardship.