Why doesn’t that surprise me?
In the end, what it comes down to is that the Constitution has been interpreted as if those imperatives didn’t exist - resulting in a case where the President is NOT subject to the same due process as everybody else, and where persons who are victimized by the felony of a President are NOT given equal protection of the laws. I have a problem with that.
Your argument is with the courts then. Your remedy is through the Legislative branch which makes it a political solution. Unless you want to roll out the guillotine.
I also have a problem with law enforcement being subject to politics.
No doubt, what is your remedy if it isn’t political?
I won’t go into the part about you calling me a b!tch
That’s good, because I never called you one, just pointed out you liked to engage in it without offering any solutions. You have offered none here either, just analysis of the issues. OK, I get it, now what is YOUR solution. Absent that, there is little point in continuing.
I’ve been saying my solution all along: all politicians should be subject to law enforcement just like anybody else - with the due process of probable cause having to be satisfied (regarding both amount and quality of evidence according to legal standards), commensurate bail, a grand jury, trial by jury in the state where the crime was committed, etc.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. There is nothing in the Constitution that says any of those things don’t apply to politicians who hold elected office, and the Constitutional mandates use the word “all”.
That’s all I’m saying. It’s not rocket science.