[Spooky23]

The constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution.

Assuming that we continue to elect presidents, you need one to appoint an effective Attorney General (ie not Garland) and use these new king like powers of the executive to smash. The president was convicted of dozens of crimes, but nobody had the balls to throw him in jail.

You have to think about 2025 solutions. The die is cast, it isn’t 1995 anymore. Nobody is clutching their pearls because POTUS made a mess on an intern anymore. It’s a different environment and you’re going to have to have fistfights on the Senate floor if the congress is functioning.

[mschuster91]

> The constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution.

A lot of what the 47th and people in his administration did are already punishable by law - alone the Signal affair or other violations of the Public Records Act.

It would not be a ex post facto prosecution, it would simply be a prosecution by a court of law that is reasonably free from corruption.

[Spooky23]

The United States has courts. I don’t think we have a law that allows you to create another jurisdiction above that of the US Courts. That’s a change in the law.

It’s all fantasy anyway.

[mschuster91]

> I don’t think we have a law that allows you to create another jurisdiction above that of the US Courts. That’s a change in the law.

Well, whoever succeeds Trump will have to go for drastic measures to restore global trust in the US. No way around that, the system is fundamentally broken and needs a complete and utter overhaul. If the Democrats have an ounce of interest in self-preservation, they have no alternative than to bring down all the hammers they can on the MAGA part of the GOP.

[ujkhsjkdhf234]

Courts don't have balls to do anything. They could introduce sanctions or deputize anyway to arrest people in the Trump for violating court orders and refuse to do so.