Can you and
@thewop expand on how you think the Biden Admin is imposing revenge?
First off, I'm all for prosecuting crimes where they exist. I also think that when you're bringing charges against a former president, you better be damn sure you have enough to convict of something really serious, and I think most of what you see brought against Trump falls short of that.
I think it's fairly obvious the many charges against Trump are brought against him because of who he is, not because of what he did. While it isn't the Biden Admin directly doing it, it's those who are in alignment with the Biden Admin, and nobody in the Biden Admin is going to do anything to put a stop to it.
The timing of it all is also carefully orchestrated to coincide with key election times.
In the NY case for example, the judge and prosecutor stated long ago they were going to convict trump... Now we're in a trial where it's unclear what exactly he's being charged with. It's embarrassing for him and all that, and experts are fairly certain that even if convicted he'll win on appeal, but by then the election will be over.
In the case where he was fined $400mm, they found that he hadn't done anything outside of what anyone else would do with real estate, and the loans he received as a result were paid off... Another case of being prosecuted because of who he is not what he did.
The charge of inciting an insurrection... If there were video of him saying "go defend me and take over the capital if you have to by any means necessary!" Then you'd say yeah that guy tried to incite an insurrection! That doesn't exist.
Throw in classified docs, where it appears many politicians including Joe Biden have fallen on the wrong side of this, yet only he is prosecuted.
For me, these are the types of things that make it appear the Biden Admin/dems are really just playing games here and doing whatever they can to win an election, but aren't really too concerned with rule of law or anything of that nature. Their actions in other areas when it comes to rule of law don't support the idea that they're tough on crime, etc. they are, however suddenly "tough on crime" when there's an opportunity to "get Trump."
Obviously there's a lot more detail to all of that, and each of those points can be debated. However the 10,000 ft. View is what matters here, and perception is that all of this is brought against Trump specifically because of who he is and not what he's done.
I think there is legit concern, to OPs point, that if elected trump may take this revenge model to a lower point than we are now, so whatever can be done to mitigate that would be good. That's where I say in that regard alone, it might be OK for the supreme court to declare presidential immunity to some things.