A lot of people are either superficial or emotional in their thinking about international events and wonder why Trump didn’t go after Obama and Hillary poorly. While asking rhetorically why there is no precedent for the United States to hold outgoing presidents criminally accountable. Before I answer that question, I’d like to ask, under what circumstances can the United States hold an outgoing president criminally accountable, and at the same time, is the political battle the kind of personal vendetta we imagine, you pinch me, I kick you?
The United States is a country of the rule of law, there are a lot of people recognize, there are a lot of people do not recognize, recognition is because some of its institutional construction, but ahead of the development of human civilization, do not recognize because the same country of the rule of law, the United States also still have a variety of underhanded operations, but this is not the fundamental difference between a country of the rule of law or not, the difference is that any person in the exercise of their own rights, or even in the ultra vires to obtain personal self-interest. Whether or not it still operates according to the established law at the time, the rule of law in a country is not about whether the country does not blaspheme, or whether people and things that use the law as a tool exist, but whether it is about following the law, or whether it is about following the law even when you want to do it to achieve your personal goals
There is no doubt from this that the United States is a nation of laws, because whether it is the side we consider to be right or the side of evil, anyone who wants to prove himself right within the national boundaries of the United States must look for precedent as well as application in the United States with its laws and facts, and this is what it means to be a true nation of laws, because it will not be too much for one man to disregard the The law, ignore the law, use their executive power to achieve their own goals, so in this regard, the United States is a country under the rule of law, after the President of the United States, there is immunity, as long as the President is legally elected, and during his term of office has not caused serious damage to the interests of the country and its citizens, and not impeached by the Supreme Court, he has the immunity granted by the State to the President.
But this when the president leaves office, the immunity will be taken back, but the problem is that no president in the history of the United States has ever faced criminal charges after the immunity has been taken back, why? Because no president can commit personal acts against the United States and its citizens while in office, and as long as a president can stay safe and verify that everything is according to the law, there is simply no force in American society that would bring criminal charges against a trusted president, and the most important thing is not what we think of the president of the United States? And it’s about whether or not he faced all kinds of charges when the president was one?
The US is not like us, we are more of a fall guy, a leader in office who will not impeach him? But afterwards, he will basically become an enemy in this circle, and then the various problems of other new leaders will be pushed forward in this cycle, but in the United States, unlike in the United States, a sitting U.S. president, if there will be some problems, then he will be directly impeached by members of Congress to the Supreme Court. Facing criminal charges, it can be argued that in the United States, the rights of the President of the United States are under the law and the immunity is to ensure the stability and consistency of the President of the United States and his policies while in office, not to be the umbrella of the President of the United States, and because of this, we will hear of every President of the United States in office, there are members of Congress who impeach the President of the United States and this is also taken up by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the real political struggle is a struggle for interests, not about good and evil, and not about morality, which is why a person who really knows politics or who has been in the political arena will not go after his political opponents, because we all know that political opponents are only the spokesmen of the power behind them, and fighting them will only make the power behind them more alert and more united. It will not serve the purpose of so-called political victory at all, and only those laymen will think that in the face of political enemies, to destroy physically, to destroy spiritually, in fact, the real power of the so-called political enemy will not have any loss at all, only a long time to hide, waiting for the opportunity to go out, and then the resulting power backlash and the cost will be much more heavy, unless you always stand at the pinnacle of power position, proud of the crowd! Otherwise, it will be as stinking as Saddam or Gaddafi.
Recent Comments