On the merits, this country has to have a way of dealing with the problem of a person

like Trump for trying to steal an election that they didn't win because the kind of consequentialist

argument about the prosecutions is like, okay, well, if we break the seal and allow that

former presidents should be indicted by their successors, that's a bad thing.

But like, let's take the consequentialist argument on the other side.

If somebody can do what Trump did, why not every time a Republican loses an election,

or even a very disreputable Democrat, do the same thing, and just say, you know, because

these prosecutions failed or these indictments didn't ever take place in a world where they

didn't, there really isn't any punishment for a president who tries to keep power against

the will of the people.

And so why not that endless cycle?

I mean, the consequentialist argument has to go both ways, and I think something has

to happen for future Republicans or future Democrats not to think, well, if I lose, I

can do the Trump route.

You know, Trump didn't succeed in winning the election, but he did succeed in keeping

his movement.

He did succeed in keeping people dedicated to him enough that he is the presumptive nominee

for the next election.

Yes.

I mean, we aren't an unprecedented and unique situation because something unprecedented

actually happened, right, like some like January 6th in the efforts Trump made to overturn

the election.

...