Hello Darth,
Originally Posted by
Darth Omar
But that’s kind of it lol.
It’s a policy and it’s open to interpretation. The reason presidents should be immune from indictment is because state Attorneys General could file bogus indictments against a president for partisan reasons. So rather than opening that Pandoras Box it was decided presidents should be immune from indictments—while serving. Makes perfect sense and it’s a good rule.
Sadly, presidents aren’t immune from partisan Witch Hunts.
At any rate, note that says *nothing* about presidents being immune from criminal conclusions or determinations that arise out of investigations. A conclusion is not an indictment. Mullet is totally on his own with that one. There is NO reason Mullet couldn’t have concluded Trump’s actions were worthy of indictment and then *plainly stated* it as such.
But he left us this Mumbo-jumbo about Trump being not not guilty of obstruction. I challenge anyone to cite another single instance where a federal prosecutor ended with such an absurd proclamation. And along with it, the so-called ten instances of obstruction which are actually ten potential instances of obstruction.
It’s very easy to get the idea it was done in order to give House Democrats something to work with. In fact, that’s the most plausible explanation for the contortions.
Yeah, but the suspicious right biased view is not the only perspective in the situation.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Bookmarks