r/politics • u/vox Vox • 4h ago
Possible Paywall This Democrat’s accountability plan has Trump fuming
https://www.vox.com/america-actually/507018/elissa-slotkin-trump-accountability-plan-democratic-majority•
u/embarrassingdyk 4h ago
If there aren’t public trials and prison sentences we are cooked. We need to show them what they earned.
•
u/KapahuluBiz Hawaii 3h ago
48 people in the Nixon administration were convicted of crimes, and 30 of them ended up spending time in prison. The corruption in the Trump administration is far greater than anything Nixon did.
One of my favorite quotes:
The "prosecute the former regime at every level" candidate has my vote in 2028.
- Ken Jennings, Jeopardy champ and current host
•
•
u/Raise_A_Thoth 4h ago
That's right. Show them an actual Republic's approach to public justice, which is fair trials and accountability for criminals, not barbaric firing squads.
•
•
u/DebentureThyme 1h ago
Neither of those will happen until 2029 at the earliest.
No one can charge him with a federal charge, the DoJ would have to do it.
Conviction, upon impeachment, would required 2/3rds majority in the Senate, at least 67 Senators. Right now it's a crapshoot if we can get to a 51 seat majority, which wouldn't even really work because fucking Fetterman would be the deciding vote on everything. 67 seats? Impossible in the current situation (only 1/3 of the Senate is elected every 2 years, so 2/3rds of it isn't changing, and even the most optimistic outcome doesn't put us even in striking distance of the seats in deep red states).
Trump has also pledged to pardon anyone who goes "within 200 feet" of the White House during this term. They KNOW they've been committing literal crimes, but he's promised to pardon them all. And SCOTUS is going to rubber stamp that and tell us if we want to change that, we have to pass an amendment (and that nothing will undo his already exercised pardon power at that point).
So expecting a public trial and prison sentences? Pipe dream. Only people we can get that way are those he doesn't care about / too small to matter / didn't lobby him with enough money to secure pardons.
•
•
u/vandy1981 2h ago
The Trump family and their millionaire/billionaire/trillionaire enablers all need to be poor for the rest of their lives.
•
•
•
u/amusedmisanthrope 3h ago
Well get ready to wait. I doubt the regime will prosecute itself. They only reason DOJ would charge/convict anyone in the next two years would be so there is enough time for Trump to issue a pardon.
•
u/Bakedads 2h ago
You do realize congress can't do that, right? And trump isn't going to prosecute himself?
Democrats did have the ability to hold trump accountable under Biden, but Biden let him off the hook, so I imagine the next democratic president will do the same. I really don't understand the people who expect democrats to do anything about republicans. Lile, have you been asleep for the last few decades? Demkcrats let them off the hook every single time. From Bush and Obama to Trump and Biden, the trend is for republicans to break the law and for democrats to forgive them.
•
u/vox Vox 4h ago
The 2026 midterms are less than two weeks away, which means we’ll soon have a better idea of what the next two years of American politics could look like. If Democrats win at least one chamber of Congress — and they’re comfortable favorites to control the House — they’ll enter 2027 with oversight power for the first time in Donald Trump’s second term. If they win the Senate, too, they’ll have even more power.
Whatever the outcome, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin wants her party to hit the ground running. In an interview with Vox’s Astead Herndon at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, she explained that the key divide in the Democratic Party is no longer “moderate versus progressive.”
“Particularly in the era of Trump, I think it is fight versus flight,” she said. “Regardless of your persuasion, do you believe that we need to think differently about how we exercise power and oversight in the era of Trump and if we don’t, we’re at risk of losing our country as we know it?”
Slotkin, who says she’s on “Team Fight,” discusses what that Day 1 Democratic agenda should look like, how she plans to hold the Trump administration accountable, whether she’s considering a presidential bid, and more.
•
u/Jumpy_Scallion_3108 4h ago
My best wishes to anyone who is fighting against the Trump.
World will be better place if Trump loses.
•
•
u/umassmza 2h ago
I expect Schumer to somehow snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
•
u/kindergentler 9m ago
And she'll be right next to him, they are both on the Israeli dole. 'Its not moderate vs. Progressive' she says, because she knows she can't win that fight.
•
u/supercyberlurker 4h ago
We tried Freeze and Flop. We even tried Fawn. We can't Flee.
That means our only option is to Fight.
•
•
u/ThirdWorldRedState 4h ago
Simply ban the presidential pardon that is the root cause here
•
u/SwimmingThroughHoney 3h ago
Takes a constitutional amendment to do.
•
•
u/TheHomersapien Colorado 2h ago
Did it take a Constitutional amendment for California, Oregon, Virginia, etc. to ban firearms?
Spoiler alert: no.
•
u/rahvin2015 2h ago
None of those states banned firearms. You can buy a firearm in any of those states.
•
•
u/DebentureThyme 1h ago
Your point is just... such a garbage non-point. If you don't pass it as an amendment, SCOTUS is going to strike it down.
•
•
u/Ceorl_Lounge Michigan 3h ago
I'm willing to bet they broke state law too, no one's getting a pardon from a Blue State governor
•
u/drewofdoom 3h ago
Except for the coward governor of my state - Polis.
Tina Peters should not be walking free right now.
•
•
u/enifsieus 3h ago
The power of the pardon is constitutional, my dude - Article II Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
•
u/ProjectEmilys 2h ago
Despite being in the constitution, it is an abomination. It is a power of Kings and it should be removed.
•
u/enifsieus 2h ago
It’s certainly been abused. We’re not supposed to elect people like this, and if we do we’re supposed to hold them to account.
My point there, though, is that it’s not just a majority vote in Congress to do away with it. It takes a Constitutional amendment and anyone who expects that with a low single digit majority didn’t pay attention in civics.
•
u/DebentureThyme 1h ago
That's great, now present the path forward that isn't just a pipe dream, because we don't hold 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate (and absolutely will not after this election, only 1/3rd of the Senate is voted for in any given election year, and there's some deep red states we're not even coming close to winning). And then you also need 3/4ths of all state legislatures to ratify it. The other ways have the same level of high requirements.
Simply put, we aren't going to amend the constitution anytime in the near future. The most recently ratified amendment was the 27th in 1992, 34 years ago. And that was only the point at which the last of the 3/4ths needed states finally ratified - that amendment was originally passed in 1789. It took THAT LONG to get it ratified by 3/4ths of the states - it was, in fact, one of the first 12 amendments proposed by Congress, and took over 200 years to be ratified finally.
And before that one? The 26th (lowered voting from 21 to 18) passed in 1971, 55 years ago.
We're too divided to reach the needed thresholds for amendments anymore. Fuck, we barely even pass budgets and only in the most panicked way.
So the pardon power is, unfortunately, not going anywhere.
•
u/Ok-Opposite2309 5m ago
Define it as not applying to crimes absent conviction. No conviction, there is nothing to pardon.
Then, be clear that granting a pardon is not exempt from all other laws. You can not grant a pardon to obstruct justice, bribe an official or accept a bribe, etc. Add that the pardoned crime is to be considered in sentencing enhancements if found guilty.
Further clarify that the Courts have no authority to grant immunity for crimes against the United States to any person or group. Congress can determine personal civil immunity for government agents, authority, privileges, and powers of government agents, but there is no ‘immunity’ for illegal/ unlawful acts for anyone. Congress sets laws/ rules regarding use of deadly force by agents of the government, for example, that protect that agent from prosecution or civil liability when act with in those laws/ rules. It is not a blanket immunity for the use of deadly force outside those laws/ rules whether on duty or off duty. Courts have no authority to grant it.
Congress needs to make that clear through its structure of the courts, funding for the courts, oversight responsibility, advice and consent of appointees, investigations and impeachments. Remembering that criminal court rules don’t apply to Congressional subpoenas or impeachment investigations, there is no reason to depend on justices choosing to comply or supply accurate financial records. If impeachment fails , the records still exist as part of congressional records to use to institute reforms, to assign for prosecution, or charges of inherent contempt of congress.
We need to expand the distribution of power in order to protect our Democracy. Too much has been handed to SCOTUS and concentrated in the Executive Branch, feeding authoritarianism and corruption. We need the political will to enact and enforce reforms. Expand SCOTUS. Expand the House. Set a deadline for territories to become states or their own nations. Exercise vigorous oversight, institute anticorruption laws, campaign reforms.
•
u/Ok-Opposite2309 47m ago
You can still limit it.
No pardons absent conviction because there is nothing to pardon or grant reprieve from. Offenses against the United States require trial and conviction, since all accused have a presumption of innocence.
Granting of pardons are not exempt from all other laws, and the Courts have no authority to grant immunity for Crimes against the United States to anyone. Therefore, crimes committed in pursuit or issuance of a pardon such as blackmail, unlawful enrichment, bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice will be applicable to all parties involved with enhanced penalties to include the nature of the crime pardoned in determining sentencing and restitution for all parties. The executive branch has a duty of due diligence when issuing pardons to ensure it is not serving a corrupt purpose.
The pardon power isn’t limited by Congress, just defined for clarity/ common sense. Taking a bribe to issue a pardon isn’t some special exception to laws about taking bribes.
The court has no authority to grant immunity to any person or group. Congress can limit personal liability of officers in their capacity as an agent of the government, but that isn’t a license to operate outside of the law/ commit a crime. That is up to Congress to determine and distinguish when it writes the laws, not Courts to summarily grant.
*courts also can’t grant human rights to artificial entities not put in place through laws enacted by Congress, like a corporate right to ‘free speech’.
It’s time for Congress to put on its big girl pants and take back its constitutional authority. Hold onto the purse to force compliance. Hire its own prosecutors, investigators. Institute consequences for inherent contempt of Congress- including suspension from office, civil fines, etc. Use any federal resources or personnel to force compliance with oversight and subpoenas. Cut off funding for failing to comply.
Impeachment proceedings should require suspension from office for all officers below the President.
Sure, it could get ugly- live stream it. Criminal rules of evidence don’t apply to congressional investigations, subpoenas, trials for contempt, or impeachments- use that for transparency of oversight. Read Jack Smiths report into the congressional record, the court has no authority to restrict Congress from a government document/ public record. Sure, argue about when the congress flips again- but use what power you have to change the rules to protect our democracy. Treat it as the national emergency it is.
•
u/YourFriendPutin 24m ago
Blatantly making self-pardons illegal is important though. Even if it needs to be an amendment
•
u/TheHomersapien Colorado 3h ago
Or Democrats could simply interpret Article 2 the same way they interpret the 2nd Amendment, and the way both parties interpret the 4th. And by "interpret" I mean basically ignore the plain text and pass whatever laws you want.
•
u/Ok-Opposite2309 1h ago
It’s not even that difficult. You can’t pardon a crime absent a conviction for that crime. With presumption of innocence as a basis for our system, a pardon without a conviction makes a presumption of guilt, and interferes with every branch of governments duties under the constitution as an obstruction to any investigation, enforcement, or application of law.
Since there is no forgiveness or relief absent conviction, you can not forgive or correct an injustice absent knowledge and conviction of a crime, therefore a pardon absent a conviction is meaningless and without substance or merit.
A pardon issued for corrupt purposes is a crime itself, applicable to all parties with the original crime pardoned to be used as a part of sentencing if found guilty. The pardon itself will still stand, but if obtained through blackmail, bribery, unlawful exchange, or to obstruct justice those crimes can and will be charged against all involved in the corrupt scheme.
The Court has no authority to issue immunity for crimes against the United States as established by Congress.
There you go. President can pardon away, but it can’t apply to a crime absent conviction (that started with Nixon), or serve a corrupt purpose like self enrichment. If found guilty, the crime pardoned should act as a sentencing enhancement. Maybe add some language about a pardon not being a protection against civil penalties/ lawsuits, and a requirement to make all records publicly available except when a victims identity may be disclosed absent their consent.
Any mass pardons absent conviction, like Carter did for draft dodgers, require an act of Congress.
Examples from both parties are available to point out.
To address fears of politically motivated prosecutions, add language making it a particular crime with no immunity for the government agents involved in the prosecution including civil penalties.
Expand SCOTUS to the entire Appellate division to help diminish their authoritarian tendencies and corruption. No need to nominate new judges or try to push through impeachments. Article 3 judges were already nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate. It’s up to Congress to determine the structure of the courts and provide their funding. SCOTUS used to serve on the Circuit Courts when not in session, so we are just returning to their historical role and more accurately reflecting the population growth.
•
u/triplenested 3h ago
You want all presidents to have no ability to pardon?
monkey paw's finger curls
•
u/code603 3h ago
The pardon actually can serve a legitimate purpose. I think a better approach would be that it could only be applied to those after they’ve been tried and convicted.
•
u/LoudAd1396 2h ago
I'm trying to think of a single legitimate purpose for an individual pardon.
I propose only blanket pardons. If the pardon is based on the law being unjust (eg marijuana poession) you can pardon everyone convicted of that crime. Same goes for fraud, child abuse, etc. No more favoritism and pardoning one special person who may or may not give you money...
•
u/sloppy_rodney 2h ago
There have been people on death row, that were convicted and used up all of their appeals, but new evidence has come out to show that they were in fact innocent.
In those circumstances, the only way to prevent the execution of an innocent person is to use a pardon.
The same logic applies for life in prison, etc.
So there are some, rare, legitimate uses for single person pardons.
•
u/LoudAd1396 2h ago
Those both sound like they should be up to judicial review, rather than allowing an outside executive that kind of power.
•
u/sloppy_rodney 2h ago
I would have no problem with pardon power residing with judges rather than chief executives. Or some sort of special commission.
But I was simply responding to point out that there can be legitimate reasons to pardon a single person.
Even this only really applies to people who have had exculpatory evidence come to light after they have used up their appeals. That is a pretty uncommon circumstance. It has happened though.
•
u/PhilDGlass California 2h ago
At a minimum, ban preemptive or blanket pardons for future indictments.
•
•
u/DazzlingResource561 3h ago
Maybe not that, but introduce some restrictions: No one that served in a cabinet position (and other loopholes). Those serving in government capacities should be able to be held accountable.
•
u/Ld862 3h ago
If the law only works sometimes then the justice system is broken. A landscaper was kidnapped today in my town by a plain clothes armed man not wearing a badge and the police won’t help. That’s not a normal thing that should be allowed to happen in a country that called itself free.
•
•
u/bakerfredricka I voted 1h ago
I would say that you should probably drop the "if" at the beginning of your comment.
•
u/RipErRiley Minnesota 3h ago
Investigate, hold public hearings, get these ghouls on tape, obstruct unqualified sycophant appointments, etc
•
u/afro-deezy-yac 3h ago
More importantly, pass gerrymandering bans, reenforce the voting rights act. Prevent mass voter roll purges. Require a certain number of voting machines per 1000 population in urban areas, etc.
•
u/RipErRiley Minnesota 3h ago
Need supermajority to do anything meaningful. Not happening (gerrymandering being one of the reasons).
•
u/Ok-Opposite2309 2h ago
Bring back inherent contempt of Congress, with consequences, including suspension from your position and access to restricted federal locations and information.
Hire outside prosecutors and investigators and empower them to access any and all government resources and personnel to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
Judicial review is not relevant to Congressional duty to investigate and conduct oversight. People can file cases, but that should not interfere with Congress exercising its authority.
Remove the cap on members of the House. Expand representation, and you reduce the effects of gerrymandering and return the electoral college to being representative of the population.
•
u/Possible-Ad3864 2h ago
Don’t forget to seize their assets, revoke their citizenship, and deport them to a third world country they’ve never lived in.
•
u/Professional_Cat8586 3h ago
Hey Dems, you know what is a powerful word in America? JUSTICE. JUSTICE has always been up there with flag and the eagle and all the other bollocks.
Bringing criminals to Justice is not only a good campaign promise, but in the current climate, ACTUALLY FUCKING MEANS SOMETHING.
•
u/Carbon_Gelatin 3h ago
In america, justice is only for the rich. Us poors dont get that.
We should change the pledge to say: "And liberty and justice for those that can afford it"
•
u/Agnos Michigan 4h ago
He has been insulting members of the press corps asking questions he does not like, I wish one of them answered back with insults of their own, like calling him a moron...
•
u/PunishTraitorTrump 4h ago
I would so love someone calling him on traitor on national tv and also calling out the Republicans for supporting and encouraging the traitor known as tRUMP.
•
u/Logical_Destruction 2h ago
Go after the rich people behind the lobbies first, after you get them out of the lobby game you can go after the people in government that have screwed up our country over the last 20 years or so. Long as they are there to support people in government and change how people will vote nothing will get done.
•
•
•
u/afro-deezy-yac 3h ago
The phrase "With liberty and justice for all" has never hit so hard with the elections coming up. Please go vote. Vote early.
•
u/threehundredthousand California 3h ago
Every one of them should be tried and if they're found guilty, Florence ADX.
•
u/IceNein 2h ago
Trump definitely needs an accountability buddy, just like Mike Johnson.
•
•
u/WhatIsNoMan 1h ago
Soon you'll be hearing: "They have a new word. They always have a hoax. The new word is 'accountability,' so they look at the camera and they say this election is all about accountability"
•
u/Significant-Evening 6m ago
Is the Democrats' accountability plan to go back 6 years and prosecute him for attempting a coup, tax fraud, corruption, treason, and stealing top secret documents? Because that would have been a good time to do it.
•
u/InHocWePoke3486 Utah 3h ago
Paywall.
If it's headed by Slotkin, ain't nothing good going to come from her. There's only a few people behind her that I'd trust less to take on the Trump administration.
•
u/The_Time-Is-Now 3h ago
Then you don’t know Slotkin very well. She’s brilliant and amazing.
•
u/InHocWePoke3486 Utah 2h ago
Not really. She couldn't even handle being pressed by the people on Breaking Points. Plus, she's a former CIA analyst and Iraq War hawk that worked for George Bush. She's a snake in thr grass.
•
u/VGAddict 4h ago
I'm sure he's terrified of all the strongly worded letters and disapproving looks the Democrats will be sending his way.
•
u/Negative_Gravitas 3h ago edited 3h ago
Speaking as a lifelong voter who will on All Occasions oppose pedophile-supporting dipshits who want to bankrupt the entire nation for their own profit. . . . "accountability plan"?!
What a fucking joke.
Edit: hey down voters!
I just want to point out two things. First, Slotkin has not published the actual plan, so that makes it a fucking joke already.
Second, from what I can see about what they actually have released, there's absolutely nothing in it about holding Trump criminally responsible for any of the criminal acts he has committed. Moreover, it doesn't seem like they're even attempting to hold any high level officials to account for criminal Acts.
I could be wrong about that, but it mostly seems focused on low level employees who are easily targetable and would easily be thrown under the bus by the Cheeto in Chief. They are embracing pocketbook issues, or so they say, and targeting the easiest of the low hanging fruit. So look for a possible prosecution of some Representatives Aid.
Again, I say, and I mean it even more this time, what a fucking joke.
•
•
u/HoldOnDearLife 3h ago
I better not hear any politician say "no one is above the law," again. America is a scam. We got scammed by both parties.
•
•
•
u/flippinwhatevs 3h ago
Whats with the click-bait title? Reporting this shit just for that alone. Let's keep some semblance of integrity.
•
u/althor2424 3h ago
The rules of Reddit state that the headline of the article has to be copied. Take it up with Reddit
•
•
•
u/JTacos12 4h ago
She is a fascist. Literally what a dictator would say and do.
•
•
u/PastorNTraining 4h ago edited 3h ago
Looking at this response maybe Ukraine missed a Data Centre in Russia. or who knows the education system here ain’t great.
From Merriam-Webster:
Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of oppositionNow apply that definition to what you’ve read in this article, and tell us exactly where the definition and reality line up? Also can you identify the “centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader” that’s calling shots in your democratic fascist fantasy?
•
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.