Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,265,624
@previous (C) > I don't see how that's relevant to our discussion.
Trump has not been found guilty (yet) therefore he cannot be called a criminal (yet) therefore your argument is irrelevant, and calling for jail time and his disqualification, based on accusations alone, goes against his constitutional rights.
> True, action should have been taken while he was still president.
This would have set a precedent to take action against former, current and future presidents, such as Obama, Biden and Bush, who have been accused of war crimes and other felonies, but not necessarily been proven guilty. Would you be OK with that?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 32 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,265,631
@1,265,624 (B)
Follow the chain of replies and you'll find that no one is suggesting locking anyone up prior to being found guilty. As for setting precedent for future presidents (not sure how we can refer to someone who is no longer president as a sitting president, so I'll ignore the former presidents remark) that is a good thing. If any president, current or future, commits a crime while in office, they should face punishment just like any other person should. Why would you believe that I would think otherwise?