The Democrats would actually impeach and convict him, though.
That's what Tater said in his speech today. Of course everyone with a modicum of brains knows what he said was a complete lie.
You sure? How could he be prosecuted, if he does it by a series of official acts?
You were never taught the word on truth.
Still..... Whenever law changes there are unintended consequences. Things that nobody expected, things that nobody saw coming. I think everything should be tried now that this new legal situation is afoot. It needs to find its own limits.
No it does not Mr. Dudd. It doesn't give the President to eliminate any part of the Constitution. Did you get this nonsense from Joy Reid or Van Jones, both communists?
Actually it doesn't because the Constitution explicitly states when his presidential term will end right there in the 20th Amendment. If he did, however, Mike Johnson would become POTUS assuming the GOP retains the majority in the house
Be careful what you ask for.
Wrong. The President has to be impeached and convicted. Up to that point he has authoritarian power to do what he wants. He has total immunity.
No he does not. It is almost like this problem was anticipated in 1933 when they switched from March inauguration to January inaugurations just for the purpose of shoving lame ducks out the door earlier.
The WEFocrats (democrats) have NO CHANCE of keeping the WH, so this may prove prophetic
It was already tested. The former president needs to go to trial. That would bring the clarity you seek.
I know...but there it is....a new and unexplored area of jurisprudence has been unleashed. I would argue that it was necessary to prevent a Hatfield<>McCoy effect going forward.
I would argue that's total nonsense, as the DOJ can't just indict at will. They have to bring convincing evidence to grand juries.
Unfortunately for your idea, there isn't a damn thing wrong on any level with state prosecutors coordinating and sharing information with federal prosecutors.
