Phat writes:
How can one be accountable when the governing body is partisan politics? We have two ideologically competing groups. How does one forge a consensus (bipartisan) that the leaders need to be accountable to?
Just the same laws we already have in place.
First of all, however, transparency is key.
All monetary transactions between the government and any agency should be available for the public.
Possibly not military and those that can be used-against-the-country by other countries with ill-intent - but these should really be few and far between.
Then, things can be handled within the existing courts.
A few examples:
1. If it can be shown that Obama's direction was to put Health-Care standards in place in a way that "funneled money" towards certain contacts in the health industry - then Obama (and any other involved-personnel) should be put in jail for an amount of time respective to the crime.
-If it cannot be shown, while all the monetary documentation is publicly available - then it didn't happen and there's no issue.
2. If it can be shown that Trump had monetary ties to Russia, or "funneled money" towards certain contacts when he shouldn't have - then Trump (and any other involved-personnel) should be put in jail for an amount of time respective to the crime.
-If it cannot be shown, while all the monetary documentation is publicly available - then it didn't happen and there's no issue.
Partisan politics don't come into it at all.
Just need transparency and being held accountable (if anything actually happened.)
If nothing happened in these two instances, then transparency shouldn't be an issue. Neither of these examples have anything to do with "national security" or anything like that. Other than things that certainly should be public, if anything actually happened.