Don’t worry. Next election the republicans will put up someone even worse than trump who will do away with elections altogether and have the army arrest every democratic governor preemptively.
Then whatever remaining democrata will write some more strongly worded letters in the name of preserving procedure and decorum.
I’d love it if you were right. I just think you’re wrong, at least as it relates to his covid-19 response. (Obstruction, etc., is a different question.)
I’m surrounded by people working so damn hard to normalize everything that’s happened since 2016. It feels like I’m being gaslit. Told to relax by people who’ve decided they’ll tolerate fascism as long as walmart is still open.
I’ll mention that the trump just admitted to slowing/stopping the USPS specifically to steal the election and my black and hispanic workmates just say “yeah, I don’t pay attention to the news or vote.”
Then they get upset when I ask them if they’re registered.
I have friends who live in Kentucky who staunchly refuse to vote at all. KENTUCKY.
Read the words of the law. It’s easily googled up. It says nothing about conviction, only that prosecution for treason or serious crimes for activities during a presidential term is prohibited unless legal action was taken during their term in office.
@anon61221983 and I are coming at this from fundamentally different directions, and while I respect her to the moon and back, my discussion with her doesn’t seem to be helping either of us understand where the other is coming from better. Instead of continuing to argue with her on something where we’re in fundamental agreement about the underlying problems, I’ve decided not to continue. Is that clearer?
I’m not sure what law you’re referring to, but maybe you can give me a link? When I googled, the first result that came up was from Article 114 of the Rwandan constitution–which, though it says what you say, isn’t binding here, clearly.
Well, shit, you’re right. That’s what I get for searching on my phone. I am now very embarrassed .
But subsequent searching on a screen larger than an index card now shows there’s no law against indicting him now or later. There’s a good discussion of the relevant law in a WaPo editorial by Jennifer Rubin from last year entitled “Would we really prosecute an ex-president?”
My friend, don’t let it embarrass you. Just scroll up to see a TRULY embarrassing blunder by this lawyer in my discussion with Mindysan.
We can certainly at least try to indict him after he’s left office for anything that’s a crime. My quibble is that I don’t think his covid policy decisions are a crime.
Steering this back to Ms. Harris for a moment…
Am I the only one who saw this speech as being the first actual sign that the Dems intend her to be number 47?
Maybe as soon as 2 or 3 years from now?
They were ignoring the facts when they elected Trump. The claim that the unemployment rate was fake and actually much higher was common. Curiously, the rate stopped being fake as soon as Trump gained office.
Reality is subjective. And for some, much more subjective than for others.
Remember their fundamental incompetence. Assuming a comprehensive investigation is done, ranging all the way back to the campaign, you think there isn’t a paper trail tying even some of his Coronavirus (in)actions to Putin? Felony + deaths?
Also, I really want a Benghazi-level investigation into the whole Russians offering bounties on American troops thing. If Trump knew about that, and still offered Putin “aid and comfort”, that’s literally treason, and I’m pretty sure we still hang people for it.