President Donald Trump acknowledged having called federal prosecutors in California to probe the state’s primary election results, claiming without evidence on Tuesday that his intervention resulted in Republican Steve Hilton advancing to the runoff in the gubernatorial race.
People don’t get that it’s not an actual crime for him because he cannot be prosecuted as president.
People seem to have inconvenient thought amnesia.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m just gonna block you. Your input isn’t welcome in my feeds.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It does, yes. Thank you for seeing me.
I did that once upon a time. I look back on those moments with a mix of shame and pity for my younger self. It feels better to engage with people sincerely, especially because of the historical times we’re living in.
Removed by mod
That’s not what that ruling actually says and the government investigating Joe Biden and his family makes it clear that only applies to a sitting president taking part in presidential matters. The ruling effectively says active investigation/prosecution can’t happen while in office only after they leave office and presidential duties are only able to be strictly defined after a president leaves office and an investigation takes place.
Never leave, never prosecute. That’s the plan.
You get that not being charged with a crime ≈ unable to be charged correct?
He’ll probably die before he’s charged, his admin though they’ll be the ones to end up in prison or finding their way to a long drop with a short fall.
No, because that’s a lie.Actually, no, wait: I think you just wrote ≈ when you meant ≠ .
What’s a lie
And yes does not equal.
“not being charged with a crime [is approximately equal to being] unable to be charged” would’ve been a lie, if that had been what you meant to write.
But you knew that’s not what I meant boss.
Hence crossing it out.
At the end of the day it’s the same thing. Laws are meaningless. It doesn’t matter what words you wrap around it to win an argument online.
They aren’t at all the same thing. The way you phase it they couldn’t investigate Biden but they are so clearly it isn’t the way you’re asserting. Nuance is important in legal matters there is generally not a “close enough” when talking about linguistics in law.
Having (temporary) immunity does not cancel out the definition for a crime
EDIT: I briefly forgot about the Trump versus United States lawsuit. Immunity is not temporary afaik.
Shitty SCOTUS rulings don’t make it not a crime either. Dred Scott was the law of the land at one point, too.
It is temporary. The ruling says sitting president and investigating Biden says even the admin doesn’t accept that it’s total immunity.
Only for “official acts” which we all know what will happen when a case comes before Uncle Clarence Tom and the rubber-stamp-SCOTUS.
People don’t get that because it’s simply not true, in multiple ways.
First, that is not law; that is an opinion written by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Nixon era that said a sitting president could not be prosecuted.
Even now, after the hideous 2024 Supreme Court decision that says all presidents have absolute criminal immunity for official acts, it says nothing about unofficial acts, nor criminal acts committed prior to or after a presidency, hence Todd Blanche’s recent efforts to get blanket immunity for him and his organization for everything they may have done prior. Note the language:
Why would any of that be necessary if nothing is actually a crime for a president?
Also, there is no law anywhere in the US that says “this is a crime unless it was undertaken by a president, in which case it’s not.” That is just asinine.
“Election interference” is not a crime because it’s just a phrase. The crimes have specific names: electoral fraud, voter impersonation, voter fraud, vote buying, etc. and absolutely are crimes, no matter who does them.
Yes. You do. These may help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_interference