Here's what I can't comprehend.

Don's minions were apparently quite pleased, or not bothered, when he referred to torch carrying white nationalist zealots as fine people.
They are willing to defend the impulsive betrayal of an ally as a consequence of a phone call from a two bit despot Don has inexplicable (maybe not so inexplicable when you consider the Trump Towers in Istanbul) admiration for.
Trumpster's don't seem to mind the adultery, the nepotism, using his office for financial enrichment, the boorish behavior, the dishonesty, the laziness, the squirrel nesting on his head, the reckless tweet storms, the epic staff turnover, the corruption.
They have chosen to dismiss everything in favor of a temporary boost to the economy. Even though the tax cut was sold to them based on a heap of lies.

Even if I could understand that, which I can't, here is what really baffles me. Individual 1 and his legal team are making the shocking argument he can not be investigated or prosecuted by any entity for the commission of a crime or violation of his oath of office while he is the prez. Furthermore, he and his legal team have characterized the constitutionally protected obligation of Congress to investigate potential wrongdoing on his part as unconstitutional.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/09/trumps-impeachment-unconstitutional-229838

So........please help me with this. Because for quite some time I've been hearing Repubs proudly claim fidelity to the Constitution. They like to talk about their respect for the rule of law, touting constitutional originalism. They like to claim judges nominated to the SC by Repubs are faithful to what the Constitution says.

At no time previous to this have I heard of any interpretation of said document giving the prez the absolute right to consider him/herself to be above the law. To be unaccountable to any judicial or legislative procedure attempting to put a check on the prez's actions.

It's one thing to be fine with hiring the immensely unqualified Prince Jared to solve the century's old problems in the ME. Or not minding Don diddling Stormy Daniels.........while married.........and then paying her off so he could defraud the voting public (okay, that's pretty bad).

But why no objection to claiming for himself the power of a monarch? Why not say........."I love the guy but he went too far there?" C'mon man!

 

Who is saying he can't be investigated?

For prosecution, that's a bit different and harkens back to our tripartite federal government. He's the executive branch of the federal government. If you really want to try to understand this, then try to figure out what legislative body is responsible for executing the will of the people. Find that and you'll be staring right into Trump's smiling face.

You can't prosecute him unless he wants to prosecute himself. The best you can hope for is impeachment.

Good luck with that. We own the senate, and impeachment is done in the senate.

 

"Last week, Trump filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York seeking to bar the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office from enforcing a subpoena served on an accounting firm seeking Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns and other financial records. In his complaint, Trump broadly argues that the Constitution bars a president from being subject to “criminal process” while he is in office."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-presidency-investigation-immunity-nixon.html

 

What you don't comprehend goes a lot farther than that, but glad to see you are at least trying to comprehend. That's a step in the right direction.

 

Well, he's partially correct. He can subject himself to the criminal process, but nobody else can.

Seriously, you need to learn how to think like a lawyer. It's one of those seemingly weird concepts that laymen don't understand. There are ways of thinking for certain professions that require actually understanding the basic precepts before you can understand the profession.

 

I fully acknowledge I can't grasp the reason for the shameless hypocrisy of Trump supporters like yourself. Care to explain?

 

IF there was a snowballs chance you could comprehend it, I would- but there's not.
Of course, it's not shameless hypocrisy; that is the strategy of those you support. That and denia; yopu are apparently confused about what hypocrisy is. Just a clue for you- It's NOT disagreeing with your beliefs.

Part of the reason I doubt that you would understand it that it's in front of you every day; you have already seen the truth many times and still neither recognize nor understand.

Some people are color-blind; red and green are both grey to them. Some people are politically blind. The first is a genetic accident, the second is a choice- one you could correct simply by using an open mind.

 

So.........in trying to cut through your , allow me to ask, do you agree that a prez should be immune from all legal recourse for criminality while in office?

 

Tribalism has become the norm for political discourse. Pyrrhic victories areas are as good as any. As long as the Democratic Party lost, the GOP did not care who pulled it off or how it was accomplished. Donald Trump meant the opposition did not get the WH. Nothing else mattered...

 

Agreed. But how could Trumpette's devotion to an ignorant bigot cause them to turn their backs on, arguably, the single most important, fundamental tenet of our democracy? That no person is above the law.

 

So you're saying he is a King

 

I remember a lot of lefties who argued just that during the last administration, and the Clinton one before it.... But sure, guess when it's politically expedient for you, your morals shift endlessly....

 

Because the Trump myrmidons hate the opposition party more than than they love the Constitution.

 

I tried typing a response to this, but it's just ridiculous. You simply don't understand how the federal government works. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. The idea that a president is immune to prosecution does seem rather bizarre, but that's how it works. He's the executor of the people's will. The people are represented by congress. The judicial is there to act as a referee in case there is a dispute.

Can he be prosecuted? Well technically yes. The judicial branch can do that. The only problem is that they're going to have a hard time hauling him off to prison because that's the job of the executive branch.

 

It is critically important to comprehend the reasons for Trump's upset victory. If the Democrats don't embrace these facts they will loose again. Trump supporters were fed up with what they perceived as coastal elites and blue state dismissiveness. Words like "deplorable," red neck," and other disparaging remarks riled up Republicans in both read and blue states. The insistence of Democrats to focus on minorities at the expense of the working, white middle class cost them heavily in that large segment. Democrats surrendered the middle class working folks long before the 2016 election and a few choice words (deplorable, etc.) sealed the deal.

My observation for the Democrats is that there is still that latent tendency to "rise above the common man" in favor of lofty proclamations of intellectual superiority and absolute command of the issues. The Dems won in 2018 because they focused on issues Americans care about - health care, wages, immigration, and education.

Dems need to rapidly get back to their base of working middle class (of all colors, religions, beliefs, and persuasions)' and let minority candidates and minorities take care of themselves. Then they need to take a massive dose of humility and respect for their fellow Americans and their worth to the nation. Dems cannot afford another Hillary on the ticket with her sense of entitlement, intellectual superiority, and foul language (deplorable's).

Dems need to accept that medicare for all, free school and college, open borders, and other nonsense are DOA for average Americans. Stick to health care, wages, immigration, education, and local issues. Do that and you will win. If not???

 

Feel free to point out any factual inaccuracy. Or...........run for the hills.

 

See? I said nothing of the kind. You invented that, drag it out like you were trolling bait, and wish to make an argument.
That's part of the comprehension problem. Wanting to understand is one thing- wanting to fight windmills is another.

 

Lindsey Graham and Mr. Gowdy are presently contemplating how they can walk back statements they made about what POTUS can do or what he cannot do regarding congressional enquiries. They made those statements when Obama was in office.

So they have to figure out how to spin the current situation.

 

I asked a question.........do you agree that a prez should be immune from all legal recourse for criminality while in office?
In response you had a hissy fit. Care to answer the question?

 

You really do seem to have a hard time figuring this one out.

hint: getting us to agree with you ain't going to result in Trump being arrested. Can you figure out how he can be arrested?

I don't think you can, but would enjoy your attempt. lololol!!!!!

 

Trump never referred to white nationalists as fine people.

 

Sorry, very fine people.

 

For starters, he said some people at a march were very fine people. There were also some WNs there. You're choice to deliberately believe Trump meant the WNs were the fine people indicates a bias unlikely to be dispelled.

 

Imagine my surprise that a Trumpster can take objective reality and contort it to fit whatever narrative they choose.
You must have listened intently when Don told you......."What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."

 

Thing is Lee, I’m not a Trumpster. Try again.