I thought it was the judge asking a question that brought that scenerio up??
but what does that fact have to do with anytghing,,
First of all, it is kind of hypocritical that Trump claims he can suspend the Constitution when he deems fit, and then hides behind some non-existent presidential immunity clause in the US Constitution. I mean where is it, I need article and section please.
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, provides "qualified immunity" to members of the House and Senate, there is no such clause pertaining to members of the executive, or judicial, branches. That clause is called the "Speech and Debate" clause because its purpose is to protect members of Congress from being charged with slander or other charges that would limit their, well, "speech and debate".
Trump's lawyers are grasping at straws here. Their argument is simple, Trump was just doing his job, protesting the results of an election tainted by fraud. Problem is, that viewpoint is not supported by the "reasonable individual" concept.
The reality is, not only did Trump understand that he lost, as all his inner circle was telling him, but he knew he was going to lose. It doesn't even matter if Trump thought what he was saying was true, although I doubt he did, what matters is a reasonable person would have believed what he was saying.
Nothing supports that argument better than Sidney Powell's defense in her defamation case. She didn't take the position that a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the election was stolen via fraud. Her defense was no reasonable person would conclude the allegation that the fraud swayed the election was true.
Final takeaway, all you morons that still believe the election results were tainted by fraud are just not reasonable people.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
