ummmm can someone explain, I'm not getting what this article is saying. is it that you shouldn't be able to prosecute a president, but because the are you can??? idk just doesn't make sense
He's saying the lower court used a copout argument, basically saying that "because they're doing it, it must be legal." Which is BS, because the government does illegal stuff all the time, and the courts are there to stop them from doing it.
soooo basically it shouldn't be okay in the 1st place but because it's already in progress it's okay to let it continue. riiiiight this whole fucking thing is a scam ughhhh. can't wait for trump to be pres and use the same thing against them then idk
I agree with you, But I think this is also happening, so after DJT wins next election and there's a MAGA majority in House/Senate and appoints his AG then they legally go after all these crooks and perverts. After that they can correct all the f'd up unconstitutional laws used against good citizens.
ummmm can someone explain, I'm not getting what this article is saying. is it that you shouldn't be able to prosecute a president, but because the are you can??? idk just doesn't make sense
He's saying the lower court used a copout argument, basically saying that "because they're doing it, it must be legal." Which is BS, because the government does illegal stuff all the time, and the courts are there to stop them from doing it.
soooo basically it shouldn't be okay in the 1st place but because it's already in progress it's okay to let it continue. riiiiight this whole fucking thing is a scam ughhhh. can't wait for trump to be pres and use the same thing against them then idk
I agree with you, But I think this is also happening, so after DJT wins next election and there's a MAGA majority in House/Senate and appoints his AG then they legally go after all these crooks and perverts. After that they can correct all the f'd up unconstitutional laws used against good citizens.
Kek... Cheers anon... ☕☕☕