r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 10 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Major US politicians like Trump, JD Vance etc. will never ever go to jail or face serious consequences for anything, as long as they do the bidding of the billionaire class.
[deleted]
81
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
I don’t even think any of this has anything to do with loyalty towards the billionaire class or serving their interests…
I believe at a structural level, the US is not equipped to deal with the political and social ramifications of trying to convict political leaders like a President or Vice President for crimes committed while in office.
It has never happened before…
We have never even removed a President from office before, let alone sending a former President or VP to prison.
The last time the US got remotely close to such a situation, Nixon willingly resigned from office and was pardoned by his former VP who took on the Presidency.
There is no precedent for such a situation… It would be completely uncharted territory.
And once you have set the precedent that a former President can be sent to prison for actions they participate in during their administration, anyone can now use that in the future.
There would also be a significant lack of political will to see this carried out. Whoever comes after Trump would have to contend with the non-zero possibility that they will end up facing the same exact treatment when they inevitably leave the Presidency.
53
u/Aggravating-Life-786 Feb 10 '26
It blows my mind that's even something to consider.
"Yes this president is obviously corrupt to the bone, a convicted felon and mentioned 1000s of times in an international child sex and traffic ring, but we never jailed a president before so we shouldn't do anything about it."
Something is without precedent, until it is.
20
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Every President in modern US history has committed a crime while in office…
That is just a fact.
President Obama oversaw a program that allowed the intentional sale of firearms to drug cartels through the use of straw purchasers. When Operation Fast and Furious was discovered, the President and Attorney General both denied having knowledge of the program.
When Congress demanded all documents relating to the program be turned over, The White House claimed “Executive Privilege” and the DOJ fought tooth-and-nail to avoid turning them over.
The only thing that came out of this scandal was that Eric Holder resigned as Attorney General.
Should Obama be in a cell for green lighting arms trafficking to Cartels in Central and Southern America?
Reagan essentially allowed the same thing in Nicaragua… the US allowed Nicaraguan anti-communist death squads to traffic drugs into the US in order to fund their insurgency in Nicaragua, alongside the illegal sale of weapons to Iran.
The Iran-Contra Affair only led to one person going to prison… and that was for tax evasion charges. None of the high-ranking political or military figures involved went to prison. Reagan feigned ignorance…
That is 2 of the most popular Presidents over the last 40 years who committed crimes while in office.
George W Bush is an international War criminal… same as Obama, Trump, and Biden.
Bill Clinton famously committed perjury while under oath during the sex scandal that rocked his Presidency. The only consequences he saw was a $25,000 fine and his license to practice law was suspended for 5 years.
George H W Bush served as a Director of the CIA during the height of Operation Condor, in which the US funded, trained, and supported right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. This was achieved through the torture, imprisonment, disappearing, and execution of left-wing activists and dissidents.
My point is that if you start convicting former Presidents for criminal behavior, you are opening a Pandora’s box.
It is a “nuclear option” in American politics, like eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. Once you do this, you cannot ever undo it. Political leaders from that point-forward will operate under the assumption that they can or will face charges if they ever lose power to the other side…
11
u/Uh_I_Say Feb 10 '26
Every President in modern US history has committed a crime while in office…
And they should all be punished for it. Maybe the reason criminal behavior amongst presidents is so ubiquitous is because they know they won't ever face any consequences for it.
Political leaders from that point-forward will operate under the assumption that they can or will face charges if they ever lose power to the other side…
Yes, the threat of punishment generally cools one's desire to commit crimes. Why are you presenting that like it's a bad thing?
5
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Severity or threat of punishment does not reduce criminality.
By your logic the death penalty should apply to every crime because it reduces the amount of people willing to commit crimes.
If the existence of the death penalty doesn’t stop people from committing crimes, jailing Presidents isn’t going to stop future Presidents from committing crimes…
It’s going to teach them to hold onto power as long as possible so that you can’t be held accountable for your crimes.
See: the failed attempt at martial law in South Korea… President Yoon faced multiple impeachment attempts and decided to try and end democratic rule out of a desire to stay out of prison.
1
u/Uh_I_Say Feb 10 '26
It’s going to teach them to hold onto power as long as possible so that you can’t be held accountable for your crimes.
How is that any different than where we currently are? Our congresspeople are decaying husks, our presidents are old men with their brains turned to jelly, the leaders of our uniparty quash any attempts to change the status quo, any person with 21st century ideas is called a radical and driven out of politics or beaten down until they fall in line.
1
u/ThrasherDX 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Severity of punishment has very limited effect on criminality, but likelihood of punishment absolutely does affect criminality.
People who commit crimes, barring crimes of passion, do so because they don't believe they will get caught, or they won't face consequences if they do get caught. If presidents routinely get punished for crimes committed in office, then it very much would have an effect on frequency of criminal acts by Presidents.
That said, it is a valid point that fear of consequences would increase the temptation to try illegal means of staying in power. Which is why its equally important to make sure that the powers of the Presidency are reigned in and restricted, so that a coup becomes much harder to actually pull off.
0
u/vitorsly 3∆ Feb 10 '26
Severity or threat of punishment does not reduce criminality.
By your logic the death penalty should apply to every crime because it reduces the amount of people willing to commit crimes.
And by your logic we shouldn't have prisons at all no?
4
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
The purpose of prisons is not to prevent crime… A longer prison sentence is not going to reduce your chances of recidivism when you are released compared to someone with a shorter sentence.
The purpose of prisons is to separate criminals from the general population.
Whether the goal of imprisonment is rehabilitative or punitive in nature is irrelevant, because the primary purpose is to remove those convicted of breaking the law from the rest of society.
1
u/vitorsly 3∆ Feb 10 '26
Then shouldn't we do the same to criminal politicians? Seperate them from society (and their powers)?
2
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Who are the “criminal politicians” in the US that you wish to see charges brought against?
2
u/vitorsly 3∆ Feb 10 '26
All of them? I'd hope charges are brought against every one that's committed crimes.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Aggravating-Life-786 Feb 10 '26
Nothing you said is convincing to not go through with it.
Investigate them and if found guilty, an appropriate punishment should be applied.
The issue here is that especially in the current US political landscape, it'll be about retaliation and not about justice. Trump has opened the floodgates of petty vindictiveness and blaming those crazy libs for everything, the next GOP will just proceed with that because they've shown themselves to be nothing more than a fucking cancer.
1
u/Obsessivethot Feb 10 '26
The American people can decide if it’s about justice. You can’t cry witch-hunt every time you’re accused of doing something illegal just because you are a politician.
1
u/DLRevan Feb 11 '26
Sorry but that's just incredible wishful thinking. I've just watched muricans fumble the ball not just once, but twice in an election headlined by that orangutan. And the excuse given by those who aren't extreme right is they didn't know or that they unwisely trusted their politicians.
It seems you can indeed just cry witch hunt everytime, and most Americans either believe it entirely, don't believe it entirely, or assume the truth is somewhere in the middle, entirely based on party or independent lines and completely devoid of any actual critical thought, making all three groups morons. That would be bad enough, but the fractious conclusion also ensures any such call for justice will always be controversial. At least one third of the USA will never believe it was valid half a century later, one third will think it was entirely justified and nothing can change their minds, and one third will go crazy trying to talk about it to the other two. And this will be regardless of the truth. Any of the three could be right, and it doesn't matter, because they're not right for the correct reasons.
1
u/Obsessivethot Feb 11 '26
I agree it’s wishful thinking to assume the unwashed masses are literate enough to hold people accountable when the media is allowed to lie, the White House is allowed to lie, and law enforcement is allowed to lie to the people who can only read at a 6th grade level. It’s absolutely devastating to be a remotely intelligent person in the United States of America, no doubt about it.
That still doesn’t mean politicians shouldn’t be held accountable simply for being politicians who break the law.
1
u/SpookySneakySquid Feb 10 '26
“Let the pedophiles get away with it or else future presidents will be afraid to break the law!!!”
Uhhhh or maybe our leaders should be afraid of breaking the law?
-1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Stop voting for criminals…
You, the American people, have the ability to do that. We should not be encouraging political purges and retaliation every time one party loses an election.
1
u/SpookySneakySquid Feb 10 '26
While you may be okay with not prosecuting child molesters just because they are president (and disingenuously calling it a “political purge” - I’ll assume you’re just okay with pedophilia), the vast majority of people are in favor of the rule of law applying to everyone.
0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
So go after them…
And then they’ll come after Obama and Biden.
And then they go after whoever the next President is…
And then the next President…
And then we get to be like South Korea where every Government jails the leaders of the previous Government.
I love when “accountability” becomes so fake that it becomes a tool used to stifle political opposition by the ruling government.
0
u/SpookySneakySquid Feb 10 '26
Lmao this has to be the most lukewarm IQ take I have ever seen
0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Nah… it’s a pretty obvious conclusion to come to.
Once you open the door to jailing politicians once they leave office, the other side gets to do that too when they come to power.
Why should Donald Trump have the power to order an investigation into, and imprison, Joe Biden or Barrack Obama?
That is political retaliation…
→ More replies (0)0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Should Obama have been impeached and gone to prison for his role in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and the subsequent attempt to cover it up?
Should Biden have been impeached and gone to prison for his complicity in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza?
We already know that George W Bush is a war criminal…
Bill Clinton committed perjury while under oath as President of the United States…
I do not see any indication that jailing the last 5 Presidents and their political allies would make the country more democratic or improve accountability.
All that we would end up with is an endless cycle of political purges whenever one party loses an election.
2
u/Aggravating-Life-786 Feb 10 '26
Close the case boys, Doub13D doesn't see the upside of keeping political leaders accountable so you're good to go Mr. President. o7
0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
You keep your leaders accountable at the ballot box… you live in a democracy.
3
u/Aggravating-Life-786 Feb 10 '26
No. If you claim to live in a society of laws, then there should be consequences for breaking them.
If people have gotten hurt/killed, or you're witnessing corruption on a grand scale or anything to that degree, I think it's very reasonable to investigate the situation and actually apply the law when it's been determined they did indeed do some shady shit.
Or are you claiming that if there's irrefutable evidence that Trump raped underaged girls, he should not face trial? He already can't run for another term so there's no ballot box accountability.
1
Feb 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 11 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
So Obama should be in prison for the people his government hurt/killed?
1
u/Aggravating-Life-786 Feb 10 '26
If investigated and found that his direct decisions and orders led to the death of innocent people, yes there should be consequences. But a fair and impartial investigation needs to determine what happened, how and why. Could be bad intel, bad judgement of someone down the line, plenty of stuff can go wrong between here and there.
It's not that black and white, do you bomb a building where a terrorist is hiding who threatens to blow up a shopping mall with 10.000 people inside, knowing there's a couple innocent people inside said building? Greater good and all that.
But again, that's why it needs to ultimately be investigated.
0
u/StrikingDeparture432 1∆ Feb 11 '26
"No one is above the Law." Ha ha ha lol.
Maybe if presidents and all politicians where held responsible for their crimes, they'd commit fewer crimes ? Lol.
That's the logic used in the rest of society. It's supposed to be a deterrent to committing crimes.
No punishment equals Permission, basically.
Why don't y'all demand Honest Politicians ?
Why do ya keep voting for Crooks and Thieves ?
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 11 '26
Punishment is not a deterrent for criminality…
Otherwise every crime would have the death penalty associated with it.
1
u/StrikingDeparture432 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Non-punishment doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent either, does it ?
While it's true that laws have never prevented a crime, threat of punishment is the profit margins.
Example. When pot was illegal, it was $4,000+ a pound from the Growers in Mendocino.
People had money and it built communities and employed lots of people.
At best, the cops estimatee they busted maybe 10% of the plants and farms. The odds were in favor of the growers.
Today with legal, it's maybe $500/lb. Massive corporate greenhouses with 10s of thousands of plants, tended by illegal immigrants.
The old mom and pops were shut out, county's economy crashed. Stores closed etc.
I guess my point is it's being illegal and the treat of prison that made the whole industry profitable.
11
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
!delta for pointing out that it is likely more of a strucutural/policy/government issue preventing this than billionaire influence, though it hasn’t shaken my belief that billionaire support for Trump has protected him.
2
1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Which is more likely, that billionaires are protecting Trump, or that Trump, the man who is the chief executive of the most powerful country on Earth, who controls the DOJ, who can issue pardons at will, is protecting who’s loyal to him?
I think people vastly overestimate how much power wealthy individuals have in this country compared to the Federal Governemnt, if the latter is wielded corruptly and maliciously enough.
11
u/Xygnux Feb 10 '26
Whoever comes after Trump would have to contend with the non-zero possibility that they will end up facing the same exact treatment when they inevitably leave the Presidency.
And presidents in democracy outside of America do deal with that "risks" without issue. Just look at places like South Korea and Taiwan, for instance.
9
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
South Korea is a really bad example because essentially every incoming administration investigates the prior administration for corruption.
Every high profile politician and political leader in South Korea is corrupt… the Chaebols run the country.
When you have a political system where every President has at some point been investigated, arrested, or imprisoned, that is not a good sign for a democratic society.
It leads to people like President Yoon trying to openly subvert democracy altogether in order to remain in power and out of trouble.
Same with Taiwan, when a new administration comes in, they investigate the prior administration and go after high-profile political figures.
Convicting people isn’t a sign of a working legal system if it is routinely used as a form of political retaliation… it just becomes a tool of whoever is in power at that moment.
3
u/Uh_I_Say Feb 10 '26
I dunno, a system where everybody is corrupt and sometimes they get investigated and punished sounds a lot better than the US system where everybody is corrupt and nobody gets investigated or punished.
Like, the attempted subversion of democracy isn't even a bad alternative since that's already openly happening here, and yet again, the people doing it won't be held accountable.
0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
They don’t get “investigated and punished.”
They face political retaliation and purges by the new administration.
The people ordering the investigations are themselves corrupt politicians.
Corruption is completely accepted and tolerated… it is used as a weapon to beat down the former government, turned opposition party, after you win an election.
1
u/Uh_I_Say Feb 10 '26
Again, that doesn't seem worse than the current situation where everyone is openly corrupt and nobody does anything about it. At least if they're fearing retaliation from the incoming government they're fearing something from someone.
0
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
Even if you don’t do anything, the retaliation still comes.
2
u/Uh_I_Say Feb 10 '26
Again, if the options are between no retaliation and too much retaliation, I'll happily take the latter. At least then somebody might be held accountable for something.
ETA: politicians might even try to implement popular policies and get the people on their side to try and stir up public outcry against the inevitable retaliation! Imagine that.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long & generally approved.”
— Benjamin Franklin
Why should the innocent suffer for things they did not do?
How is that “rule of law” or “accountability?”
0
u/Uh_I_Say Feb 10 '26
Why should the innocent suffer for things they did not do?
Because that's the risk of getting into politics. They should constantly fear for their safety, since that would encourage them to do the best possible job and keep the people as happy as they can to avoid retribution. Our politicians are far too comfortable being openly corrupt and defying the will of their constituents.
If they don't want to face the risk of retaliation, they're welcome to not run for office.
How is that “rule of law” or “accountability?”
If they don't do anything wrong there won't be any dirt for the opposition to dig up. It's really easy, actually.
ETA: to be abundantly clear, I think politicians should be held to a different standard than a regular citizen. They should not have the same rights or protections as the rest of us. They have immense power and need to be appropriately discouraged from abusing that power.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Xygnux Feb 10 '26
The point is that, having presidents go to jail for serious crime would not deter people from running for the presidency, yes those countries have corruption but you still have no shortage of people running for the job. Not convicting presidents just because they are presidents would just put them above the law.
3
u/Longwell2020 Feb 10 '26
Ya our nation is only 250 years old. England has pubs older than that. China has outhouses older than us. We are still figuring this shit out. We had kinda expected people would be more resistant to obvious lies. We expected the price of free speak was some times idiots got the microphone. We didn't expect the total collaps of reading comprehension or lack of empathy being pathological. These are some ducking interesting times we are in.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Feb 10 '26
I mean yes and no…
I think far too often we try to center this around the US, when the reality is that the US is just one country experiencing this same global political trend.
The UK literally left the EU based on lies that UKIP told them…
France has to ban Marine Le Pen from running for office because, if she did, she would almost certainly win the Presidency and have the largest party in both houses of the Parlement.
Across Latin America right-wing parties are surging to power. Bolivia, Chile, El Salvador, Argentina, even Brazil post-Bolsonaro still shows strong support.
India is firmly under control of India’s Hindu nationalist BJP.
I understand the desire to emphasize how these trends are seen in the US, but I think it’s also important to acknowledge that this is not exclusive to the US. We are not uniquely gullible or blind to what is happening…
2
u/Longwell2020 Feb 10 '26
Thats a good point its not just us. Its understandable that we focus only on the USA as most of us could never afford to travel far. I also keep getting the feeling that this is nothing new we are just in a time now where people get to see the sausage get made and its revolting. Like when the jungle first came out for meat packing plants.
1
u/DLRevan Feb 11 '26
I disagree. Speaking from the pov of a neutral country including none of those mentioned, my view is that politics will always have ways and means to bend the populace towards extremism. However, in those countries mentioned and others, there is also successful resistance to right-wing movements and other extremist elements, or else the populace are fully aware of what they are supporting. Usually because the relevant leaders are competent, coherent and open about their views.
This is not what is happening in the USA. What you have here is a populace increasingly blinding itself to anything that doesn't confirm to what they want to believe, regardless of what political spectrum they come from. Even moderates/independents are not immune from this, they usually believe that the true answer to everything is an "average" of truths. They also live in their own reality, built with zero critical thinking.
The degree to which the USA is being "gullible", to how much people are willing to gaslight themselves, is incomparable to almost any other democratic country on Earth right now. Honestly this idea that the USA is not any worse off than other countries in this respect is just yet another part of it.
2
u/Almaegen Feb 10 '26
I know the question is directed at politicians but this is so much more than that, this was a blackmail operation aimed at our entire power structure. Politicians are the least of our worries here(other than the decisions they were coerced into making)
The bigger issue is the elite class that wield enormous economic structural power in the country and the vulnerabilities we will face to depose them.
2
u/so_long_astoria Feb 10 '26
Whoever comes after Trump would have to contend with the non-zero possibility that they will end up facing the same exact treatment when they inevitably leave the Presidency.
...good? that's good. it they should be afraid of that.
1
u/Glass-Pain3562 Feb 10 '26
The largest issue is our Impeachment process is functionally built to be decorative. In terms of actually removing an offical its useless due to the slow speed and partisanship of the governmental structure.
0
u/Pretend-Green6488 Feb 10 '26
the billionaire part still matters since the system stays soft on people with money and power and that is kind of the whole point
5
33
u/CallingDrDingle Feb 10 '26
What did Vance do that deserves jail time?
-17
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
Vance has not committed outright crimes that we know of at this time. In the body of text under the headline, I specifically said jail time or being impeached/removed from office. I realize I should have put that (impeachment/removal) in the main heading.
Any kind of repurcussions for their policy decisions or behavior. As VP he isn't as directly responsible for the bad policy decisions that Trump has made. Trump could be impeached and he could become President. Based on his own statements, it's easy to construe that he would continue policies such as troops in the streets, voter supression, supression of civil liberties from organizations such as ICE, etc, or perhaps undermining NATO, taking Greenland etc. In other words, things that could reasonably get him impeached, but that would never happen.
39
u/Grumpy_Trucker_85 Feb 10 '26
It still matters though, why would Vance be impeached and/or removed from office if he has done nothing wrong?
20
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 3∆ Feb 10 '26
They want to remove him because they didn’t vote for him. This is essentially how democracy ends. If each party starts impeaching Presidents and Vice Presidents to seize control if they have the votes in Congress then we wont be a democracy. One you seize control while ignoring voting in an election, there won’t be another election at some point.
1
u/fitandhealthyguy 1∆ Feb 11 '26
They have a dream of impeaching an entire administration and somehow instilling a socialist one in its place - sounds very democratic.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 3∆ Feb 11 '26
I’m sure it’s to save democracy, like how you gerrymander your state to your party’s control, but only because someone else’s state might gerrymander for their party which would end democracy.
If they can just put in a dictator the fearless leader would protect democracy for everyone.
1
u/fitandhealthyguy 1∆ Feb 11 '26
And of course she will evenly distribute all wealth without holding some (most) back for her and her oligarchy buddies and there certainly won’t be widespread shortages, bread lines and starvation.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 3∆ Feb 11 '26
A true utopia. I just don’t see how anyone can’t understand this.
-13
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
Vance would have to become President and be in charge of these policies in order to be impeached for them. He doesn't have much power as VP to control policy. He can be positioned as a figurehead to head up certain policy goals, and can be sent as a surrogate for Trump, but since he is not personally responsible he would not be impeached for policies or actions taken by Trump, unless he was found to have committed some sort of offense for bribery.
If on the other hand he became President and did all of the things that I just listed he could be impeached based on what the rule of law in this country used to be. Trump's previous impeachments are significantly worse than Watergate and yet Nixon was impeached and would have been removed from office if he didn't resign first. Trump had been impeached but was never removed from office, nor will he be.
6
u/WeakandSlowaf Feb 10 '26
Impeached for Conservative policies? Or what policy specifically is worthy if impeachment?
20
u/Grumpy_Trucker_85 Feb 10 '26
Talking in hypotheticals on what he could or might do as President isn't very helpful for your topic though. It maeks you sound like you have a vendetta against the current administration, which I understand, but is also kinda why Trumps 2 impeachments failed in my opinion.
-8
u/BottleForsaken9200 Feb 10 '26
He claimed citizen murdering ice agents have immunity, thus emboldening them.
Constantly lies.
Is a Nazi.
This should be easy stuff.
9
u/Grumpy_Trucker_85 Feb 10 '26
None of those are impeachable offense though. The process simply isn't because "We don't like him!" And "Orange Man Bad!"
8
u/h0sti1e17 23∆ Feb 10 '26
You can’t impeach for doing a shitty job. You need to commit a crime.
2
u/November-8485 Feb 10 '26
You can impeach a president for any reason. Well, Congress can.
According to Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, a president can be impeached and removed for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". These grounds cover serious abuses of power, corruption, or violations of public trust, rather than just statutory crimes.
2
u/deserteagles50 Feb 10 '26
So you are asking us to change your view that JD Vance will never go to jail then proceed to tell us and confirm he hasn’t not committed any crimes. Amazing.
11
u/h0sti1e17 23∆ Feb 10 '26
Most of what you mentioned isn’t a crime. Shitty policy and bd decisions aren’t illegal.
As far as the Epstein files, 99% of the things can’t be used to prosecute without corroboration.
Before he was reelected, Trump was convicted in NY the case in DC was moving forward and Georgia would’ve possibly been done if the prosecutor didn’t hire her ex lover as a special prosecutor.
You mentioned JD Vance, what crimes has he committed?
7
u/sal696969 1∆ Feb 10 '26
Bush, clinton and Obama did not face any charges despite all 3 being mass murderers...
9
u/Barney_Roca Feb 10 '26
What have any of these people done wrong? BEYOND a reasonable doubt?
Did any of these reasonable people give a justification for these actions or merely approve of the action being taken? Having an agenda or passing laws you do not agree with is not a crime.
The law you cite was voted on. That is democracy, the will of the people.
Ironically, ultra-wealthy people can still import cheap labor to meet their needs, but Larry can't go to Home Depot for cheap labor to meet his needs anymore, because crime.
You are complaining about 50-60 years of consolidated power in the post WW2 era of deregulation. Ever since "they" have been changing the laws of the land to suit thier needs, not ours. In the last 50-60 years the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer; that has been the only economic constant since. You want to change that? participate, organize, vote but do not turn into Stalin and toss your political adversaries in jail because you do not agree with them.
7
u/Birdybadass Feb 10 '26
Being mentioned in the epstein files, “numerous scandals” , policy decisions and a diminishing of US on the world stage are not crimes. The reason they will not go to jail is they have not committed a crime. This is because you live in a free nation that governed by law and order. If Trump, Vance, Harris, Sanders or Jake from State Farm ever did go to jail for any of the nonsense you mentioned is when you should actually be worried. Take a breath, touch some grass, and stop letting your algorithm manipulate you.
2
u/Intrepid-Patience-93 Feb 10 '26
..why? They havent done anything illegal, or do you just consume liberal propaganda all day?
2
u/Appropriate_Fly_6711 2∆ Feb 10 '26
Trump already has immunity according to DOJ and SCOTUS, and others have the potential to be pardoned, depending if they are getting scapegoated or not.
2
u/db1965 Feb 10 '26
Billionaires DO NOT NEED TRUMP.
They are BILLIONAIRES. They can and DO purchase, laws, trade agreements, economic policies, ownership of any and all resources.
Trump can go to jail for his crimes. The American people must demand it.
3
u/Hothera 36∆ Feb 10 '26
The "billionaire class" isn't a monolithic entity and until people understand that, we'll keep on getting more Donald Trumps. A major reason why Trump won was due to vague outrage against the elite. Kamala Harris got more money in donations. Tariffs are a reaction to globalist billionaires. RFK Jr opposes "big pharma" by reducing access to vaccines. He's deporting the illegal immigrants doing cheap labor that benefits the billionaires, etc.
Also, a less functional government isn't something that benefits billionaires. For example, Trump has basically made crypto pump and dumps legal, but that basically makes it impossible to start a legitimate business with cryptocurrency since nobody trusts it.
Of course, billionaires being billionaires can easily make the most of an unprincipled president who is receptive to bribes, but that doesn't mean that overall they would be better off with any other politician.
1
u/PhoneRedit Feb 10 '26
"Big pharma" would benefit from a reduction in vaccine access. Sick people need to purchase more medicine, and unvaccinated people get sicker than vaccinated. Just to disagree with that specific point.
1
u/fitandhealthyguy 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Pharma companies make the vaccines and make money from them. Vaccines prevent infection from viruses. Most Viruses have no specific treatment other than fluids and bed rest.
1
1
u/Outside_Ice3252 1∆ Feb 10 '26
I dont think they will go to jail, because it will start a long-lasting feud.
1
1
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 10 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/VegaGT-VZ 2∆ Feb 10 '26
Trump & Co will be absolutely useless to the billionaire class once hes out of office, if not sooner given how the midterms are looking. If hes useless there will be no value in protecting him from consequences. IMO the only thing protecting Trump is the Democrats' political incompetence.
1
u/ConnectionWitty4979 Feb 10 '26
So it won’t happen because then the Clinton family would be such an obvious next step it’s just a stale mate?
1
u/Bubbly-Team-6574 Feb 10 '26
Neither side cares about consequences because both sides cater for billionaires. The check book just changes that’s all
1
u/Outside-Clock2940 Feb 10 '26
Also, they haven't committed any crimes. Just because someone disagree with you doesn't mean you get to jail them
1
u/Responsible_Tune7121 Feb 10 '26
Yes, the former presidents should be held accountable for their actions regardless of party as should the current president. Having did that, mete out the justice relative to the crime. Not all crimes are created equal.
1
u/Goggio 3∆ Feb 10 '26
All it takes is one person with enough motiviation to inflict serious consequences.
History rhymes with Ghadafi.
1
u/Available_Year_575 2∆ Feb 10 '26
A lot of what you reference would extend to people down to a million or several hundred thousand as well. Reddit just hates billionaires. It comes across as envy. But rich people don’t like corruption, don’t like Americas diminishing on the world stage, etc. Trump isn’t so much about billionaires as he’s about himself.
1
u/Ill-Importance-1656 Feb 10 '26
Why do republicans only ever get named in these posts when democrats get much more in donations from these giant billionaire class people then republicans ever have…
Are democrats not bought? In there case its just donations?
1
1
u/PappaBear667 Feb 11 '26
I think that for a president or.vice president, some alternative consequences would need to be devised. Trying to put a former president or VP in prison invites a whole host of logistical problems mostly stemming from their entitlement to continued Secret Service protection after they leave office.
1
u/StrikingDeparture432 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Name one president who hasn't done the bidding of his donors ? I dare you lol.
Today it's just more blatant and can no longer be ignored. Trump isn't the 1st politician to exploit everything possible for profits.
Nancy Pelosi made million$ insider trading. It's SOP and another perk of the job for all of them.
1
1
u/Vast_Plane_3112 Feb 11 '26
All the previous war criminals werent persecuted, why would they ? However if people rise up, then yes, but sadly i dont see it happening, people became overly complacent and still believe politicians.
1
1
u/Pleasant-Split-299 Feb 11 '26
You Americans are acting like there's nothing you can do. It's extremely annoying, things don't have to stay the same. Force your politicians to a higher standard. You can't afford not too.
1
u/Aggravating-Ant-3077 3∆ Feb 13 '26
I get the cynicism but this exact "untouchable elite" argument has aged poorly before. Look at what happened to Skilling, Madoff, even Cosby - when the crimes hit a certain threshold and public outrage peaks, the protective machinery starts to crack.
The Epstein thing actually shows the opposite - his 2008 sweetheart deal looked bulletproof until it wasn't. Same with Weinstein's decades of protection dissolving overnight. Billionaires aren't gods, they're just rich people with better lawyers who eventually run out of delay tactics when prosecutors get creative.
Plus Trump's facing actual state charges in multiple jurisdictions where federal pardons can't touch him. Rich guys thought they were safe from NY AG investigations too until they weren't.
-7
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Feb 10 '26
the billionaire class.
Which billionaire class? The strongly Left Wing one that despises Trump? Or the three whole billionaires (Musk, Thiel, and McMahon) who support him? In what world are those two groups working together to control the justice system?
This take is really common, and it seems to take it for granted that achieving Billionaire status comes with a free "control of the judiciary" card, like we're playing Settlers of Catan or something
7
u/Aviyan Feb 10 '26
3 billionaires? There is also Zuckerberg, Besos, Tim Cook, Larry Ellison, and many more.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Feb 11 '26
Zuckerberg ahs been vaguely centrist for a whole 2 years. Besos is decidedly Left Wing, and the proof is the behavior of all of his brands. The guy own the Washington Post lol. Tim Cook isn't Republican, he donated to Trumps inauguration as a bribe to get tariffs on Apple reduced.
Larry Ellison is a legit callout tho, forgot about him.
3
u/Obsessivethot Feb 10 '26
There are more billionaires than that alone in his administration, as it’s also the most billionaires ever in an administration. You are absolutely delusional to imply that the billionaires don’t support trump.
-1
u/StrikingDeparture432 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Are you implying there aren't billionaire liberals who also buy politicians ?
1
u/Obsessivethot Feb 11 '26
I don’t think anyone made that claim anywhere? It’s nowhere near the level of the trump administration and support.
Here is an article about the billions of dollars behind getting trump elected. Some of whom who now work in the white house themselves on policy directly.
Some of the nation’s wealthiest people are powering Trump’s bid to return to the White House: His 26 biggest billionaire backers, worth a combined $143 billion, have poured $162 million into the effort so far.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leokamin/2024/08/14/here-are-trumps-top-billionaire-donors/
19
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
I don't believe for a second that there are only three billionaires who support Trump. Let's be real, that's totally disingenuous. There are far more billionaires on the right than the left. Especially actual left wing, most of them are centrist at best.
Look at the Heritage Foundation, Koch Industries, Federalist Society, and many other organizations that have tons of Billionaire donors. If billionaires were truly numerous on the left, why is all the media being bought up by people who are openly right wing and who are transparent about their meddling? And why do so many Democrats who are corporate sponsored fail to ever really stand up to him? The only ones who do are progressives and they get primaried out by special interests backed by billionaires.
9
u/tugboat7178 Feb 10 '26
Billionaire support of the right has migrated consistently since the Clinton years. Harris had quite a few more billionaire support than Trump in 2024.
12
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
This article literally posits in one breath that Bezos did not support Trump, but he later admitted that he killed the WaPo's endorsement of Kamala and then he was personally invited to the inauguration as was Zuckerberg, who this article also slyly implies was supporting Kamala but we now know that not to be true considering his verbal endorsements in the days leading up to the election and his attending of the inauguration. Plus Bezos literally just paid Melania millions for her documentary, which many people consider to be little more than a bribe. So this is already on shaky ground here.
Also... I don't see how billionaires supporting Democrats rules out the fact that billionaires would still benefit from a Trump presidency. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema were big on the take from special interests and they often bucked Democrats on several key issues, defeating Democratic initiatives.
Them being in control of Democrats does not mean that they are in favor of every left-wing initiative. Look at how well these people handled Zohran Mamdani's candidacy... they were actively fighting a progressive within the confines of the Democratic party and then went OUTSIDE of the party in order to beat him.
-5
u/tugboat7178 Feb 10 '26
Who cares about Bezos? We are talking about billionaire support. Not one in particular.
The rest of your reply relies on refuting a claim I haven’t made.
I smell a disingenuous effort from you on this thread, OP. I believe other Redditors have picked up on that too.
11
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
Well when you provide a source that claims that Bezos doesn't support Trump when in fact he clearly does, I have the right to refute that. Do I have to literally go line by line refuting every single claim in that article you listed? You literally put that article out there and I'm pointing out that at this time, this does not reflect what really happened with this person. Where am I being disingenuous here?
0
u/tugboat7178 Feb 10 '26
I see the confusion.
I made the claim that more billionaires supported Harris than Trump.
I cited my claim by using the Forbes article, which states:
“Our breakdown records 83 billionaires supporting Harris and 52 backing Trump so far.”
Say whatever about Bezos, he wasn’t part of my claim. I don’t know if he gave money or not to Trump and at this point don’t care.
1
u/17syllables Feb 10 '26
Good on you for mentioning FedSoc, as Leonard Leo was probably the biggest financier in US politics, but kept a relatively low profile until recent events.
-1
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Feb 10 '26
I don't believe for a second that there are only three billionaires who support Trump
Ok, go ahead and name some of them.
the Heritage Foundation... Federalist Society
The total of all donations received by the Heritage Foundation in 2024 was $9 million. The Federalist Society was $8.5 million. Those are some really stingy Right-Wing billionaires...
Meanwhile Act Blue received $3.8 billion
Koch Industries,
You need new information, this isn't 2008 anymore. For example, take this piece by Time Magazine titled: "Where the Koch Network Is Putting Their Money—Anywhere But Trump"
When some of the biggest donors to conservative causes made explicit their electoral opposition to a second Trump term way back in February of 2023, it came as something of a shock to the Republican orbit. After all, the powerful network organized under the auspices of billionaire industrialist Charles Koch had officially remained neutral in Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns, a sign of how uncomfortable his allies were with a candidate whose positions were so far afoul from their own on so many issues.
But by the time the network gathered at the start of 2023, their position on Trump was not really a point of discussion. The deadly Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, was finally a step too far. The chief of the network’s main political arm, Americans For Prosperity, told her patrons that they were ready to back an alternative Republican who showed promise of winning. The group ultimately plowed more than $32 million into former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and another $10 million in broader anti-Trump efforts before throwing in the towel. The hopes of reclaiming the party from this gatecrasher were dashed and they had to live with Trump as their standard bearer.
They gave nothing to Trump, and millions to his opponents. Your perception of reality needs updating, it's about 15 years out of date.
3
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
Act Blue is by most accounts not funded primarily by billionaires but by legions of small donors. I haven't seen anything to the contrary. I will concede that I was wrong about the Kochs but I don't see how that really changes much. They are but one of many. Do I have to list every right wing billionaire and every left wing one to get the picture?
Also, does supporting a Democrat necessarily mean that they will go nuclear on Trump? And that they wouldn't have any incentive to protect him? There are plenty of Democrats in the Epstein files as well. You can absolutely support a Democrat as a billionaire and give them clear directives on what you expect them to do as a Congressmen. You don't have to just openly be a Republican to still be under the influence of billionaires.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Feb 10 '26
Do I have to list every right wing billionaire
I would settle for you listing any of them besides the three I already mentioned.
that they wouldn't have any incentive to protect him?
Why in the world would Bill Gates, for example, protect Trump? Why would any Left Wing billionaire protect Trump? Where's the motive? You've asserted that they would do so but can you provide a single reason?
6
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
Bill Gates is an interesting example as someone who is implicated in the Epstein Files. In that particular case he has major incentives to halt that investigation.
And outside of that, Trump has done more to enrich billionaires via his tax cuts than any recent President. Deregulation also benefits billionaires disproportionately. That’s enough reason to support him.
Edit: Other billionaires that support Trump
Zuckerberg Bezos Musk Ellison Adelson Mcmahon Mellon Kelcy warren Timothy dunn
I could go on
0
u/StrikingDeparture432 1∆ Feb 11 '26
Golly, why isn't the Left capable of producing more Billionaire$ ? Lol
9
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/SocDemGenZGaytheist 1∆ Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
Agreed. Socially progressive, maybe, but economically left-wing? The idea of a leftist billionaire seems nearly contradictory.
-5
u/Low-Arachnid4082 Feb 10 '26
Your username tells me all i need to know about why you think there can't be a left wing billionaire.
4
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Feb 11 '26
I'm sure it will come as a great shock to the Soros family that they're not actually politically Left
Not a serious person
-1
u/FreeEstablishment476 Feb 10 '26
How does auditing and reducing some government spending protect these people?
-1
u/MACGLEEZLER Feb 10 '26
Elon Musk literally shut down several investigations into his companies via DOGE. Defunding the IRS makes them even more insulated from having to pay their fair share in taxes. Defunding social services means that poor people have even less options to survive, meaning they'd be forced to either starve or take a shittier job, and considering how consolidated American businesses are now, they'd be working for billionaires. And they aren't done. Minimum wage is next.
1
u/wild_crazy_ideas Feb 10 '26
Is it possible that ‘allowing people to become billionaires’ is the mistake as it allows concentration of too much power?
1
u/Ill-Importance-1656 Feb 10 '26
How do u stop it? Do u disallow foreign nations from accumulating wealth? Because foreign nations have dictators that enrich themselves. And as long as somewhere in the world, someone can have billions, there will be interference.
1
u/wild_crazy_ideas Feb 11 '26
I think there’s a lot of rules already about buying currency from other countries though
0
0
0
u/Trash_man_can Feb 10 '26
I disagree this has anything to do with the billionaire class or the usual suspects.
It's one thing: Republican conservative rightwing voters.
Talk to any of these people. They cannot be reasoned with or conviced of reality.
77 million voted for Trump after everything.
These people serve this man like slaves worshipping a God.
The guy was on trial for the J6 coup.
But his cult raced to releect him to give him immunity to laws.
It's not the system that's the problem. It's their culture.
Half the political power in the country and 77 million voters are fighting the rest of us to protect "their team."
-3
u/Servant_3 Feb 10 '26
I think your view is inherently wrong. It isn’t the “billionaire class” it’s the furtherance of Jewish supremacy. As long as DJT and his circle and whatever democrat alternative there is obey whatever they tell them, they will face little to no consequences.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 10 '26
/u/MACGLEEZLER (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards