How should Trump be held accountable?

[kentuck]

Should we rely totally on the NY AG and the SDNY?

Or should the new Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel to find out if he is indeed the traitor he appears to be?

Should the FBI continue their investigations? Should they go much deeper into his finances than Mueller went?

Should he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

Would it hurt the Democratic Party if he is not investigated?

[Johonny]

1. A giant class action lawsuit against him and his organization

for crimes against humanity and the American people. I think proving harm was done will be easy.

Bankrupt them all.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. All of the above.

Of course there will be pushback and the Democratic Party will get a ration of shit from the likes of Chuck Todd. But Trump is a fucking criminal. Dems already let the war crimes president get away with it. They must not let the U.S. traitor get away with it.

[JoeOtterbein]

3. Yes,...

...yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and YES!

[CrispyQ]

4. Yes to your last question.

We are partly here because we look forward. We go along to get along. 80 million people did not stand in long lines to vote dems in so that the Con can walk. We send a message that this kind of shit isn't tolerated or we will be back here again & probably sooner than anyone thinks. Now that the emoluments clause is meaningless & we don't require candidates to show their taxes, there must be some authoritarian type billionaire who would like to take over the country to enrich himself. One who isn't so crude, incompetent, & compromised as the Con.

[diva77]

5. Would the International Criminal Court work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt)[2] is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that sits in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals. The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.

The ICC began operations on 1 July 2002, upon the entry into force of the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty that serves as the court's foundational and governing document. States which become party to the Rome Statute become members of the ICC, serving on the Assembly of States Parties, which administers the court. As of November 2019, there are 123 ICC member states; 42 states have neither signed nor become parties to the Rome Statute.

The ICC has four principal organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry. The President is the most senior judge chosen by his or her peers in the Judicial Division, which hears cases before the Court. The Office of the Prosecutor is headed by the Prosecutor who investigates crimes and initiates criminal proceedings before the Judicial Division. The Registry is headed by the Registrar and is charged with managing all the administrative functions of the ICC, including the headquarters, detention unit, and public defense office.
SNIP

I think "crimes against humanity" could apply.

[brooklynite]

23. The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC...

...even during the Obama Administration.

[diva77]

26. Why?

[brooklynite]

28. "Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S. Government's Policy Regarding the ICC"

Why does the U.S. think its people should be above the law?

The U.S. does not seek to put its people "above the law," rather we want to ensure that our nationals are dealt with by our system of laws and due process.

We as a nation believe in justice and the rule of law, and in accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and have vigorously pursued the highest standards in this regard.

We accept the responsibility to investigate and prosecute our own citizens for such offenses should they occur. Our policy is to encourage states to pursue credible justice within their own institutions, consistent with their responsibilities as sovereign states.

We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.

Why are the protections provided for under the Rome Statute insufficient to meet U.S. concerns?

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC claims the authority to second guess the actions taken and the results reached by sovereign states with respect to the investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case, the ICC prosecutor, with the approval of two judges from a three-judge panel, could still decide to initiate an ICC investigation or prosecution.

Such a decision by the ICC prosecutor would not be inconceivable. Features of the U.S. common law system, U.S. constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the U.S. jury system are different than those that apply in most other countries. ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.

We are also concerned that there are insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges.

The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.

How can the United States oppose prosecuting war criminals?

We do not oppose prosecuting war criminals. We have consistently led the effort to strengthen international justice and accountability.

The United States played a key role in the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for his crimes because a coalition of countries, led by the United States, not only gave political support to the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, but also supplemented that support in practical ways, in cooperation with the new leadership in Belgrade.

Foday Sankoh and his followers will be brought to justice for their crimes in Sierra Leone because the United States sponsored a Security Council resolution requesting the establishment of a Special Court of which we are a key supporter and the largest financial contributor.

We continue to hope that the United Nations and the Government of Cambodia can agree on a reliable, independent, and impartial structure for trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders.

We support the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda request for additional judges in order to speed the important work of the Tribunal. We recently announced a Rewards for Justice program on Central Africa with the goal of bringing to Arusha the authors of the Rwandan genocide who are still at large.

We believe that accountability is obtainable by primarily relying on national judicial systems and international tribunals established where appropriate by the Security Council within the framework of the UN Charter.

[diva77]

29. These FAQ answers sound like they were written prior to GW Bush & Dump

Time for an update

[C_U_L8R]

6. Swap places with the Roses at Schitts Creek.

[intrepidity]

11. How cruel

to the fine folks of Schitt's Creek!

[C_U_L8R]

12. Swap the whole town.

The name is more fitting for the maga turdcluster

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. Other states where Trump does business are looking into his taxes, practices, etc.

So Trump is far from being out of the woods.

[CanonRay]

8. We need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission

with subpoena power and able to refer criminal cases to DOJ. No holds bared.

[Irish_Dem]

10. I like this idea. nt

[SheltieLover]

9. To the absolute fullest extent in every jurisdiction!!!

Every. Single. One. Who conspired, aided, covered up for or obstructed justice in investigations!

[Lunabell]

13. Something must be done on a federal level.

This can't happen again! His level of criminality is treasonous.

[lame54]

14. If Biden passes on this and...

A takes the Obama stance to "look forward"

Then he is denying the American People the justice we deserve

[Demsrule86]

19. Yeah well if we get nothing done for the American people and lose the next to elections what have

we accomplished? He will be pardoned...let the states handle it and the AG look into any possibility...then we appoint a commission to look at the pandemic... We only have two years. And consider if the pugs have the House and the Senate, as we may lose the house in 22 and that leads to perhaps a stolen election and the end of our Republic. All our efforts must be proving to the people that we can send help and govern...a partisan fight is not what most in this country want. Trump is in his late 70's...let nature take its course.

[lame54]

24. Couldn't possibly disagree more...

Beside we were told that Trump is going to live to be 200

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. Shave his head, diaper him and chain him to a pole in Times Square with "Loser" posted on it.

Oh, and put a cellphone just out of his reach so he can't tweet.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Special Prosecutor (Independent Prosecutor if Dems take Senate)

Every federal crime by Trump and his enablers must be investigated and prosecuted, regardless of who gets a pardon. The truth must be exposed and justice must be done. If not, the next Trump will be smarter and more competent.

Reminder: federal pardons do not protect from civil fines and asset seizure.

[crickets]

17. Every state AG with standing, as well as the FBI,

a Truth and and Reconciliation Commission, and/or special counsels should all be investigating the trumps and their cronies, charging them and dragging them all into court for trial and sentencing where applicable. Throw every single book at all of them.

For both the country itself as well as our international standing, we need to take the time to do these things and do them right or we will never know true peace and respect again.

[Demsrule86]

18. I am against a special counsel. We have so much help needed to get to Americans...this

must take a back seat and if he is pardoned, what is the point? Perhaps a commission like the 9-11 independent commission to look into the pandemic and what went wrong. Let Congress do its most important job...send help the American people.

[KPN]

20. Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

[gibraltar72]

21. It would harm the country if he's not.

My solutions involve a wall and blindfold. The next one will be smarter. Let's make sure there isn't a next one.

[walkingman]

22. Didn't he reinstate "firing squad" - maybe he should give it a trial run.....

[2naSalit]

25. Biden could have the country join the ICC in The Hague...

And send them there for crimes against humanity, the rest should go to gitmo.

[frazzled]

27. First, you need to identify the specific federal laws

that have been violated and that can be proven to have been violated in a court of law. Traitorous asshole is not good enough. Failure to inform citizens about the pandemic is certainly noxious, but I doubt you’d win a court case. (We’re not in impeachment mode anymore).

Specific financial transgressions would seem like the likeliest place to start, and the most provable.

I’m no legal expert, but I’d appreciate for someone who is one to propose the federal laws that are under consideration in this discussion. Otherwise, we’re just talkin’ trash (with good reason: the guy’s a piece of trash; though I’ll remind you that being a shit is not a violation of federal law on its own merits.)

We went through this same discussion when GW Bush left office 12 years ago. And nothing came of it except an excuse to criticize Obama and Holder. Is that perhaps what’s going on here? Preparations for having a reason to drum up rancor for Biden?