Thanks for the explanation. I am hopeful that the whistleblowers that Gabbard has mentioned (and Patel for that matter) will quote Obama, and erase the plausible deniability.
I also wonder if the SCOTUS will someday rule that the spirit of the immunity had to do with unintended consequences of policy decisions, not criminal actions with intent (i.e., akin to "first degree").
I am also hoping that President Trump is establishing his distance so that when it goes down, people will point at him less.
There is no way that treason, or seditious conspiracy, would be considered an official act of the presidency. Those are both felony criminal charges, one of which is punishable by hanging. We have all seen how our courts operate. They move at a snail's pace if it's going after a liberal, and often the cases aren't even heard out of lack of standing, or the conservative side just loses the case. I pray to God that's not the case here because we all know what they did.
Thanks for the explanation. I am hopeful that the whistleblowers that Gabbard has mentioned (and Patel for that matter) will quote Obama, and erase the plausible deniability.
I also wonder if the SCOTUS will someday rule that the spirit of the immunity had to do with unintended consequences of policy decisions, not criminal actions with intent (i.e., akin to "first degree").
I am also hoping that President Trump is establishing his distance so that when it goes down, people will point at him less.
Here's hoping.
There is no way that treason, or seditious conspiracy, would be considered an official act of the presidency. Those are both felony criminal charges, one of which is punishable by hanging. We have all seen how our courts operate. They move at a snail's pace if it's going after a liberal, and often the cases aren't even heard out of lack of standing, or the conservative side just loses the case. I pray to God that's not the case here because we all know what they did.