After all is said and done and Trump has left

[lunatica]

which should be in two years or less, I want Congress to pass laws which hold Presidents legally accountable for actions which they now claim puts them above the law.

Treason needs to be carefully defined, and that includes the exceptions to the rule. It’s possible that treason would have to be defined differently for a President than it is for others because of the nature of the Presidency.

It should be written into law what the procedure for holding a President accountable would be. Example: who or what pre-existing group is assigned the task of following through on judicial determinations of guilt or innocence of any member of the Executive branch, up to and including the President AND his appointees.

I don’t see any reason to be stuck in such a large grey area of the legalities of what Presidents do as we are now.

One example I think everyone can agree on is that the meeting Trump had with the Russian officials the day after he fired Comey where no American official was present and in which Trump allegedly gave them top secret information should be 100% ILLEGAL! Another example is the meeting Trump had with Putin in Helsinki, again with no American in the room should be illegal.

Also, the necessary actions to be taken should the President break these laws should be made into law. This would make everyone accountable. Not just the President.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Yes, and we should have clearer and harsher laws

...against presidential campaigns meeting with representatives of foreign governments.

Nixon’s campaign in 1968 sabotaged peace negotiations with Vietnam.

Reagan’s campaign in 1980 sabotaged hostage negotiations with Iran.

The Trump campaign met with Russians for dirt on HRC.

[dalton99a]

2. There should be a Donald Trump Prevention Act

to prevent future Donald Trumps from hijacking the Oval Office and holding the country hostage

[lunatica]

3. We've been through too many questionable Presidencies

to not start doing something about it.

Nixon as everyone knows

Reagan negotiating with Iran for the release of the hostages and much more including his time as governor of California:
https://listverse.com/2015/01/15/10-reprehensible-crimes-of-ronald-reagan/

George H W Bush going after Noriega who he set up in power initially and more:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/the-ignored-legacy-of-george-h-w-bush-war-crimes-racism-and-obstruction-of-justice.html

[ailsagirl]

4. Can't believe we've been saddled with that miscreant for nearly two years

Seems like forever

[lunatica]

5. If this doesn't teach us a lesson in the consequences

of not holding government officials legally accountable I truly fear what would. How much worse does it have to get for us to demand laws to prevent this?

[ailsagirl]

30. An excellent question, lunatica

If it's literally a question, I tremble with fear

If it's a rhetorical question, I dig it!!

[lunatica]

6. Kick

[dem in texas]

7. I hope that Trumps has taught us a lesson

Need laws that require that a President release his/her tax returns before taking office, place any investments and businesses in a blind trust while in office and prohibit the hiring or appointing close relatives to cabinet and high management positions.

[lunatica]

8. Same laws for any President's appointees and Cabinet members

[HipChick]

11. Agree...

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. treason is defined in the Constitution

[lunatica]

10. Yet I've heard people still debate whether Trump has committed Treason.

Laws can shut that debate up.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. ha! laws create more debate

The U.S. Constitution is pretty plain about emoluments and treason, yet people make a living debating it.

A missing comma can result in a decade of litigation.

[lunatica]

13. Making law is not the Constitution.

Law is either Constitutionally upheld or struck down. Nowhere does it say laws applying to Presidential activity are unconstitutional.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. I don't understand

I didn't claim or imply that "laws applying to Presidential activity are unconstitutional."

You said, "Laws can shut that debate up". I said, "laws create more debate."

[lunatica]

16. Sorry! I misunderstood

I thought you meant nothing but more debate would result.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. been a crazy day

Any time there's a law involved, there will be debate. Else, lawyers would starve!

JI7 points out in another post in the thread that the problem is Republicans. (That seems to be a feature of Republicans). They failed to do their Constitutional duty to provide a check on Trump and voters gave their opinion in the form of a big blue wave.

[lunatica]

24. If we're smart we'll continue the blue wave in two years!

[Haggis for Breakfast]

15. How about adding enforcement to the laws we already have on the books ?

The Emoluments Clause is a good place to start.

Next, the "rules" regarding nepotism. Please. Get busy on that one. I never want to see another Ivanka, sitting across from an Angela Merkel at a international summit. I don't know if I'll ever recover from that. Or a Jared making policy in the Middle East.

[lunatica]

18. Agreed!

If Trump’s blatant disregard of all the rules are ignored after he’s gone it will surely happen again and again!

[JI7]

17. we already have much of this. the problem is the Republicans in Congress that did not do their job .

and they decided to cover for and defend trump .

[lunatica]

19. It doesn't have to start right away, but there should be agreement on some things

right away. Maybe laws against nepotism in the White House is something we can all agree on now. Surely we can find common ground on some things. It’s not like the Republicans are MAGAts who adore Trump. To them he’s just a useful tool. Even they are beginning to ignore him. They got what they needed.

[JI7]

21. we already have a lot of these laws. if this was a democrat they would have been out of office

already. even if it was some other republican besides trump they may have been out.

the problem is republicans covering for trump. it doesn't matter whether they adore trump themselves. most of the republican party does .

for example mark sanford who was very conservative but critical of trump so he lost the primary.

[lunatica]

23. That should also be illegal.

It’s illegal in all other walks of life so it should also be in Congress or if done by any elected or appointed persons.

The laws have to make every single official accountable.

[UniteFightBack]

20. Nadler is pushing for at least increasing the statues of limitations if you won't indict a

corrupt president.

[47of74]

25. I probably sound like a broken record

But I think voter suppression and electoral fraud should be punishable by death. They should be considered the very worst crimes that can be committed in any democracy and can never be tolerated.

[lunatica]

28. I would settle for long prison sentences for everyone involved

And it should be an automatic barring for life in any further government jobs, after they get out of prison.

Maybe they should even be required to register as voter frauds, just like sex offenders have to register.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

26. Agree with all you stated...

Add one more item. I don’t know how to enact this or carry it out, smarter ones than myself can figure it out.
We need to have a comprehensive vetting of presidential candidates before they can run. If this was done before the 2016 run we would not have Individual #1 as president.

[lunatica]

27. Supposedly that already happens with them submitting tax returns

But up to now that’s been on a voluntary basis. They should make it a law requiring ALL candidates who declare they’re running to submit tax returns going back various years. Those taxes should be submitted to Congress and be available to all news outlets.

And it should also be the law that the FBI has to do a background check. So obviously I agree with you. There might be other things but I can’t think of any right now. Can you?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

29. No need to spatchcock their lives...

I believe between an F.B.I. background check and tax returns that should be plenty. Crooks like Individual #1 would think twice or thrice about running for such a “glass house” position. Of course if they did think about it they’re already better than Ind #1, cuz he didn’t think at all.