Reading a brief Raw Story breakdown of some of today’s arguments from the justices in the never-should-have-been-taken-up-in-the-first-place immunity case, this quote from Alito leapt out of my screen like a rabid dog:
“A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who added that if a president fears prosecution after they leave office, it could encourage to try to cling to power.
A criminal prosecution of Trump could "lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy," he said.
So — let me get this straight: Alito is making the argument that an ex-President should never be charged with a crime they committed...because (gasp!) they’ll “fear prosecution” (yes, that tends to happen with criminals who are indicted with crimes — they usually aren’t happy about it)...and “cling to power” — meaning that they’ll refuse to leave office and engage in insurrection — and THAT’s the logic for not charging an ex-President for crimes they committed? That we should never hold ex-Presidents accountable for their CRIMES because they might commit the crime of insurrection because they’re BUMMED about being indicted?
Huh. That’s odd, because I always thought that NOT holding those in power accountable for their crimes is what leads to fascism. I must have been reading the WRONG CONSTITUTION.
Not to mention the obvious fact that there is no precedent of a U.S. president engaging in insurrection before Trump, therefore employing the specter of insurrection as a tool to *not prosecute for insurrection* (or any other crime committed), is Ionesco-level absurd, as it not only implies that every future president would be as insane as Trump — but that every *past* President, as well, was so fragile that they were just a broken tea-cup away from engaging in insurrection.
Alito here is not only justifying both immunity AND the insurrection by surreally blaming “fear of prosecution” (hey, Trump just engaged in insurrection because he didn’t want to be prosecuted for his crimes, so let’s just not indict ex-Presidents — see: citizens — for crimes they’ve committed anymore; problem solved!) he’s essentially making the argument that NOBODY who’s been in power should ever be prosecuted for crimes they committed when they’re about to leave their position because they might commit more crimes to prevent being prosecuted.
Following that pretzel logic to its crumbling death-ledge, this is literally an argument against the entire concept of *ENFORCING LAWS*, as it’s suggesting that since criminals don’t want to be prosecuted, we shouldn’t indict them for their crimes because they might commit more crimes to prevent being prosecuted. Uh, YEAH. *That’s what criminals do*.
Alito is arguing, here — and I need to steady myself just to type this — that we won’t be able to maintain our Democracy unless those who are leaving office…are NOT indicted for crimes they’ve committed, once they’re citizens.
Well, there’s a head-scratcher, because all this time, I thought that holding people in power and after they’ve been in power, accountable to our laws is exactly what makes a Democracy strong.
If an exiting President engages in insurrection to prevent being prosecuted for their crimes — you *prosecute for the insurrection*, TOO. You don’t establish a standard by which you just EXPECT an exiting U.S. President to engage in insurrection (which, again, isn’t exactly something that we’ve had to worry about before Trump) because you’ve enforced the law and indicted them for their crimes and then not enforce the law to prevent another crime from being committed that you’d have to indict over. This is literally an argument for *never charging anyone with a crime*.
I’ll be right back, because apparently, I have to re-validate my ticket for THE UPSIDE DOWN.