You're trying to draw distinctions that don't matter. All in order to make this somehow "different". There is no distinction. Doesn't matter if...
Of course we're talking hypothetically here. You think the President could actually stop such from happening? Even with such a threat? And still...
Sorry, but my argument applies to ALL Presidents. Even Biden.
This was evidenced already btw. When he was thought to be the most likely to be the nominee if Trump was somehow taken out lefties were already...
Then you should be pissed that your tax dollars has been used exactly for that for Congress. Are you? Also with your answer here it would indicate...
Actually it was raised, which is why lefties hollered so much. It was raised via the defense lawyers answer when he would not give an unequivocal...
And you expect that same political body to not politicize a law for the same thing you're talking about? Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat...
The US already has a system in place for when a President unlawfully acts. Its called the Impeachment Process.
No thanks. Some people like to live in their vehicles, even if they have full time employment making more than 70k/year. This would affect them....
You're exaggerating things. Its not based on a "whim". In the examples I gave of possible immunity was any of it "on a whim"? And if it were to...
No one has claimed "ANYTHING contrary to Law". Even my own post is making a distinction between a "Presidential Act" vs a "Personal Act" and is...
The only ones pushing "absolute immunity" propaganda are leftists. No lawyer has argued for such.
Don't even pretend that there has never been corrupt prosecutors. And not one lawyer in this case is arguing for absolute/full immunity.
You may wish to read my last post, post 81.
I'm just going to copy/paste what I already stated in another thread, I'll leave the quote tags out so that you can easily quote it if you wish......
Separate names with a comma.